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
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 h..
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.