Filed: Aug. 23, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10021 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FABIAN ARREDONDO-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-136-1-T - August 22, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian Arredondo-Huerta (“Arredondo”) has requested le
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10021 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FABIAN ARREDONDO-HUERTA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-136-1-T - August 22, 2000 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian Arredondo-Huerta (“Arredondo”) has requested lea..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10021
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FABIAN ARREDONDO-HUERTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-136-1-T
--------------------
August 22, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fabian
Arredondo-Huerta (“Arredondo”) has requested leave to withdraw
and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738 (1967). Arredondo did not file a response to counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Our independent review of the 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.