Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Tapia, 99-41122 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-41122 Visitors: 59
Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-41122 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADRIANA TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-99-CR-135-2 _ October 27, 2000 Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender appointed to represent Adriana Tapia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required
More
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 99-41122
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                versus

ADRIANA TAPIA,

                                             Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. B-99-CR-135-2
_________________________________________________________________

                           October 27, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The federal public defender appointed to represent Adriana

Tapia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).         Tapia

received copies 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.




     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     Accordingly, the 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.




                                 2

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