Filed: Aug. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40109 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSÉ RAUL BOTELLO-DUQUE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. V-00-CR-61-ALL - August 20, 2001 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender, counsel appointed to represent José Raul Botello-Duque has moved for leave to withdraw and has f
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40109 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSÉ RAUL BOTELLO-DUQUE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. V-00-CR-61-ALL - August 20, 2001 Before JOLLY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender, counsel appointed to represent José Raul Botello-Duque has moved for leave to withdraw and has fi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40109
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSÉ RAUL BOTELLO-DUQUE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. V-00-CR-61-ALL
--------------------
August 20, 2001
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender, counsel appointed to represent
José Raul Botello-Duque has moved for leave to withdraw and has
filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967). Botello-Duque has not filed a response. Our independent
review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous
issue in this direct appeal. 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.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.