Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Aguila-Echenique, 99-21046 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 99-21046 Visitors: 83
Filed: Feb. 16, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-21046 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOAQUIN AGUILA-ECHENIQUE, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-210-ALL - February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel appointed to represent Joaquin Aguila-Echenique on appeal has moved to withdraw and has filed a b
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 99-21046
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOAQUIN AGUILA-ECHENIQUE,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Southern District of Texas
                    USDC No. H-99-CR-210-ALL
                      --------------------
                        February 15, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Counsel appointed to represent Joaquin Aguila-Echenique on

appeal has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).    Aguila-Echenique has

not filed a response.

     Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses

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.

     MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

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