Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Rodriguez-Joya, 99-41119 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-41119 Visitors: 31
Filed: May 30, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: No. 99-41119 -1- IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41119 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS DONALDO RODRIGUEZ-JOYA, aka Francisco Javier Alvarez Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-99-CR-103-1 - May 26, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Donaldo Rodriguez-Joya
More
                                No. 99-41119
                                     -1-

               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                              No. 99-41119
                            Summary Calendar



                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                     VERSUS

                       DONALDO RODRIGUEZ-JOYA, aka
                         Francisco Javier Alvarez

                                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                     USDC No. B-99-CR-103-1
                      --------------------
                          May 26, 2000

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Donaldo

Rodriguez-Joya   has    filed    a    brief   as   required   by   Anders   v.

California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).        Rodriguez has filed no response.

Our review of the brief and our independent review of the record

disclose no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.          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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer