Case: 12-10877       Document: 00512275545         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/17/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           June 17, 2013
                                     No. 12-10877
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SALVADOR CANCHOLA, JR.,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:09-CR-83-1


Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Salvador Canchola,
Jr., 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). Canchola has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as
Canchola’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10877   Document: 00512275545    Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/17/2013

                               No. 12-10877

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