Filed: Jan. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-20281 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ABELARDO GARCIA-CARPIO, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-591-1 _ January 3, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appointed counsel for Abelardo Garcia-Carpio has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-20281 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ABELARDO GARCIA-CARPIO, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-591-1 _ January 3, 2001 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appointed counsel for Abelardo Garcia-Carpio has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California,..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-20281
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ABELARDO GARCIA-CARPIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CR-591-1
_________________________________________________________________
January 3, 2001
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appointed counsel for Abelardo Garcia-Carpio has filed a
motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Garcia has responded, asserting that his
rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations were
violated and that the PSR incorrectly calculated his criminal
history score; he further asserts that counsel was ineffective.
His ineffective assistance claim will not be considered in this
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
direct appeal. See United States v. Gibson,
55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th
Cir. 1995); United States v. Higdon,
832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.
1987).
Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Garcia’s response,
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. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
2