Court Opinion

ID: 820879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-02-20 00:06:28.648012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:09.154161
License: Public Domain

Case: 12-40498       Document: 00512147213         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/19/2013

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         February 19, 2013
                                     No. 12-40498
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VISNHU ADRIAN VAZQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Raul Vasquez-
Hernandez, also known as Adrian Vasquez-Hernandez,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:11-CR-1621-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Visnhu Adrian
Vazquez-Hernandez (Vazquez) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United
States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Vazquez has not filed a response.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents
no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for
leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

       *
         Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.