Filed: Jul. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41055 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus UVALDO VELA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-91-CR-304-1 - - - - - - - - - - July 13, 2001 Before JOLLY, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Uvaldo Vela-Rios (Vela) has requested leave to w
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-41055 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus UVALDO VELA-RIOS, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-91-CR-304-1 - - - - - - - - - - July 13, 2001 Before JOLLY, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Uvaldo Vela-Rios (Vela) has requested leave to wi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-41055
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
UVALDO VELA-RIOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-91-CR-304-1
- - - - - - - - - -
July 13, 2001
Before JOLLY, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Uvaldo
Vela-Rios (Vela) has requested leave to withdraw as counsel and
has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S.
738 (1967). Vela 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.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.