Filed: Feb. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: Case: 12-50361 Document: 00512134056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 4, 2013 No. 12-50361 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CAMILO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Lee Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-1486-3 Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Cir
Summary: Case: 12-50361 Document: 00512134056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 4, 2013 No. 12-50361 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CAMILO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Lee Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-1486-3 Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circ..
More
Case: 12-50361 Document: 00512134056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 4, 2013
No. 12-50361
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CAMILO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Lee Rodriguez,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-1486-3
Before JONES, DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Camilo Rodriguez has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores,
632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Rodriguez 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, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.