Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Casares, 99-10720 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-10720 Visitors: 22
Filed: Feb. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10720 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICARDO CASARES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-62-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo Casares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a b
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 99-10720
                        Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICARDO CASARES,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 4:99-CR-62-1
                        --------------------
                          February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

      The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo

Casares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).    Although

notified of his right to file a response, Casares has not done

so.   Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.   See 
id. Accordingly, counsel’s
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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