Filed: Sep. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20007 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PABLO GUTIERREZ-CARILLO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-128-1 - September 14, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pablo Gutierrez-Carillo (“Gutierrez-Carillo”) has moved for
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20007 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus PABLO GUTIERREZ-CARILLO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-128-1 - September 14, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pablo Gutierrez-Carillo (“Gutierrez-Carillo”) has moved for l..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20007
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PABLO GUTIERREZ-CARILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-128-1
--------------------
September 14, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pablo
Gutierrez-Carillo (“Gutierrez-Carillo”) has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gutierrez-Carillo has not filed
a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record
discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for
leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
