Filed: Aug. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41257 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO CARRACCIOLI-AGUILERA, also known as Francisco Ortiz-Aguilera Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-216-1 - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-41257 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO CARRACCIOLI-AGUILERA, also known as Francisco Ortiz-Aguilera Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-216-1 - - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-41257
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO CARRACCIOLI-AGUILERA,
also known as Francisco Ortiz-Aguilera
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CR-216-1
- - - - - - - - - -
August 25, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco
Carraccioli-Aguilera has filed a brief as required by Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Carraccioli has filed a
response. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and
Carraccioli’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.