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
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 Ca..
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.