Filed: Apr. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-40868 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40868 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAMIRO ZAMORA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-167-1 - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramiro Zamora-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has f
Summary: No. 99-40868 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40868 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAMIRO ZAMORA-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-167-1 - April 14, 2000 Before WIENER, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramiro Zamora-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has fi..
More
No. 99-40868
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40868
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAMIRO ZAMORA-DIAZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-99-CR-167-1
--------------------
April 14, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramiro
Zamora-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Zamora-Diaz has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief but
has not filed a response. Our independent review of the 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.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.