Case: 13-10423      Document: 00512540210         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/21/2014




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                                    No. 13-10423
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                         February 21, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NOE RANGEL GARCIA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:12-CR-176-1


Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Noe Rangel Garcia
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 

(1967), and United States v. Flores, 

(5th Cir. 2011). Rangel Garcia has filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
as Rangel Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 13-10423   Document: 00512540210   Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/21/2014


                              No. 13-10423

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.     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.




                                    2