Filed: Jun. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40785 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO JAVIER TORRES-AVINA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-163-1 - June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Torres-Avina has requested leave to
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40785 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCISCO JAVIER TORRES-AVINA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-01-CR-163-1 - June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Javier Torres-Avina has requested leave to ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40785
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO JAVIER TORRES-AVINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-01-CR-163-1
--------------------
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco
Javier Torres-Avina has requested leave to withdraw as counsel
and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California,
386
U.S. 738 (1967). Torres has not filed a response to counsel’s
motion to withdraw. Our independent review of the brief and the
record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,
the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities in this case, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.