Filed: Sep. 20, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51202 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERARDO ANTONIO FLORES-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Jose Delaluz Zubia, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-00-CR-798-ALL) _ September 20, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Gerardo Antonio Flores-De La Cruz a/k/a Jose Delaluz
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-51202 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus GERARDO ANTONIO FLORES-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Jose Delaluz Zubia, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (EP-00-CR-798-ALL) _ September 20, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Gerardo Antonio Flores-De La Cruz a/k/a Jose Delaluz ..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-51202
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GERARDO ANTONIO FLORES-DE LA CRUZ, also known as Jose Delaluz
Zubia,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-00-CR-798-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
September 20, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Court-appointed counsel for Gerardo Antonio Flores-De La Cruz
a/k/a Jose Delaluz Zubia has requested leave to withdraw as counsel
and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S.
738 (1967). Flores-De La Cruz 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.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.