Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Canales-Velasquez, 99-20507 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-20507 Visitors: 27
Filed: Dec. 15, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-20507 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PEDRO ANTONIO CANALES-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-508-ALL - - - - - - - - - - December 14, 1999 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Antonio C
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                           No. 99-20507
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PEDRO ANTONIO CANALES-VELASQUEZ,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                        - - - - - - - - - -
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-98-CR-508-ALL
                        - - - - - - - - - -

                         December 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

     The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro

Antonio Canales-Velasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).   Canales-Velazques did not file a response to counsel’s

motion to withdraw.   Our independent review of counsel’s brief

and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue.   Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.


     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer