Filed: Dec. 12, 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 December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51042 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALBERTO ISMAEL NOLASCO-MENDEZ, also known as Alberto Nolasco- Mendez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-27-1 - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURI
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 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-51042 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALBERTO ISMAEL NOLASCO-MENDEZ, also known as Alberto Nolasco- Mendez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-27-1 - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIA..
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 12, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-51042
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALBERTO ISMAEL NOLASCO-MENDEZ, also known as Alberto Nolasco-
Mendez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CR-27-1
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel appointed to represent Alberto Ismael Nolasco-Mendez
has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required
by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nolasco-Mendez has
not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and
counsel’s brief 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.