Filed: Apr. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-40644 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40644 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERMELINDA RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-481-01 - April 7, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ermelinda Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has
Summary: No. 99-40644 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40644 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ERMELINDA RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-481-01 - April 7, 2000 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ermelinda Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has f..
More
No. 99-40644
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40644
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERMELINDA RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. M-98-CR-481-01
--------------------
April 7, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ermelinda
Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Rodriguez did not file a response to counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the
record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.