Case: 16-41156      Document: 00514033774         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/14/2017




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 16-41156                                 FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                           June 14, 2017
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CARLOS EDUARDO DELGADO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:15-CR-465-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Eduardo Delgado 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). Delgado has filed a response, and he requests substitution of new
counsel for his appointed attorney. The motion for appointment of substitute




       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41156       Document: 00514033774   Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/14/2017


                                  No. 16-41156

counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 

,
90203 (5th Cir. 1998).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Delgado’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the 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