Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Gutierrez-Carillo, 00-20007 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 00-20007 Visitors: 18
Filed: Sep. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20007 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PABLO GUTIERREZ-CARILLO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-128-1 - September 14, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pablo Gutierrez-Carillo (“Gutierrez-Carillo”) has moved for
More
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 00-20007
                           Summary Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PABLO GUTIERREZ-CARILLO,

                                          Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. H-98-CR-128-1
                      --------------------
                       September 14, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pablo

Gutierrez-Carillo (“Gutierrez-Carillo”) has moved for leave to

withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).    Gutierrez-Carillo has not filed

a response.    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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

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