Filed: Oct. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: Case: 13-40041 Document: 00512420391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 25, 2013 No. 13-40041 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANCISCO RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1457-1 Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Summary: Case: 13-40041 Document: 00512420391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 25, 2013 No. 13-40041 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANCISCO RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1457-1 Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. ..
More
Case: 13-40041 Document: 00512420391 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 25, 2013
No. 13-40041
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FRANCISCO RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:12-CR-1457-1
Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Rafael
Rodriguez 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). Rodriguez 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.