Filed: Aug. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40141 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALBERTO MACIAS-GARCIA, Defendant- Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-399-1 - August 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Macias-Garcia (“Macias”) has requested leave to withdraw and has
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40141 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALBERTO MACIAS-GARCIA, Defendant- Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-00-CR-399-1 - August 16, 2001 Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges: PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Macias-Garcia (“Macias”) has requested leave to withdraw and has ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40141
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALBERTO MACIAS-GARCIA,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-00-CR-399-1
--------------------------------------------------------
August 16, 2001
Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto Macias-Garcia (“Macias”) has
requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738
(1967). Macias has not responded to the motion. Our independent review of the brief and the record
discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.