Filed: Feb. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10720 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICARDO CASARES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-62-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo Casares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a b
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10720 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICARDO CASARES, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-62-1 - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo Casares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a br..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10720
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICARDO CASARES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-62-1
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo
Casares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as
required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Although
notified of his right to file a response, Casares has not done
so. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses
no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See
id. Accordingly,
counsel’s 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
