Case: 11-20445     Document: 00511877899         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/06/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                            June 6, 2012
                                     No. 11-20445
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FREDY RUBINA ROJAS, also known as Flaco, also known as Freddy Urbina
Rojas,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:09-CR-668-5


Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Fredy Rubina Rojas 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).
Rubina Rojas 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.


       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-20445   Document: 00511877899   Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/06/2012

                               No. 11-20445

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