Filed: Apr. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10797 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TUAN BA LE, also known as Jason Le, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-70-1 - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tuan Ba Le has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10797 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TUAN BA LE, also known as Jason Le, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:00-CR-70-1 - April 12, 2001 Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tuan Ba Le has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10797
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TUAN BA LE, also known as Jason Le,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CR-70-1
--------------------
April 12, 2001
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Tuan Ba
Le has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Le has received a
copy of counsel’s motion and brief but has not filed a response.
Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no
nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.