Filed: Aug. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40309 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE JAVIER CHAVANA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-429-1 - August 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Javier Chavana-Solis has moved for leave to withdra
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40309 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE JAVIER CHAVANA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-429-1 - August 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Javier Chavana-Solis has moved for leave to withdraw..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40309
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE JAVIER CHAVANA-SOLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CR-429-1
--------------------
August 27, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose
Javier Chavana-Solis has moved for leave to withdraw and has
filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967). Chavana has received a copy of counsel’s motion and
brief but has not filed a response. Our independent review of
the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No.
-2-
APPEAL IS DISMISSED.