Filed: Aug. 25, 2006
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 August 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 05-20200 Clerk Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAMONA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Monica, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-291-8 - Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel appointed to re
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III No. 05-20200 Clerk Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAMONA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Monica, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-291-8 - Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel appointed to rep..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-20200 Clerk
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMONA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Monica,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:00-CR-291-8
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel appointed to represent Ramona Rodriguez has
requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has filed a
pro se appellate brief in response to counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Our independent review of the briefs and the record
discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for
leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.