Filed: Apr. 16, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 16, 2008 No. 07-40547 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GERARDO ROJO-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-PO-1806-ALL Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Gerardo Rojo-Mar
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 16, 2008 No. 07-40547 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. GERARDO ROJO-MARTINEZ Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-PO-1806-ALL Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Gerardo Rojo-Mart..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 16, 2008
No. 07-40547
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GERARDO ROJO-MARTINEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-PO-1806-ALL
Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Gerardo Rojo-Martinez has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rojo-Martinez has not filed a response. Our independent
review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
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.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.