Filed: Jun. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20937 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADOLFO CALLEJA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-158-ALL - June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Assistant Federal Public Defenders (AFPDs) appointed to represent Adolfo Calleja-Lopez have filed a motion
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-20937 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADOLFO CALLEJA-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-158-ALL - June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Assistant Federal Public Defenders (AFPDs) appointed to represent Adolfo Calleja-Lopez have filed a motion ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20937
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADOLFO CALLEJA-LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-158-ALL
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Assistant Federal Public Defenders (AFPDs) appointed to
represent Adolfo Calleja-Lopez have filed a motion to withdraw
from representation of Calleja and a brief as required by Anders
v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Calleja has not responded to
the AFPDs’ brief. Our independent review of the brief and the
record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the APPDs’
motion to withdraw is GRANTED; the AFPDs are 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.