Filed: Dec. 10, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-40889 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE AGUIRRE-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-620-01 - Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Julius Lerma, the att
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 02-40889 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE AGUIRRE-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-620-01 - Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Julius Lerma, the atto..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 10, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-40889
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE AGUIRRE-VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-01-CR-620-01
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Julius Lerma, the attorney appointed to represent
Jose Aguirre-Vasquez, has moved for leave to withdraw and has
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S.
738 (1967). Aguirre-Vasquez has filed no response to Lerma’s
motion. Our independent review of the record and Lerma’s brief
shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, Lerma’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
Lerma is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.