Case: 11-40177     Document: 00511640488         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/21/2011




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         October 21, 2011
                                     No. 11-40177
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISMAEL TAPIA-CERDA, also known as Manuel Rodriguez-Gonzalez,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:10-CR-1224-1


Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ismael Tapia-Cerda
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). Tapia-Cerda has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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,

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40177   Document: 00511640488   Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/21/2011

                              No. 11-40177

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                    2