Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Munoz-Hernandez, 01-50697 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 01-50697 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jun. 21, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-50697 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE HUGO MUNOZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Jose Hugo Sanchez-Vasquez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-01-CR-162-1 - June 18, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Bryan P. Cartall, counsel appointed to represent Jose Hugo Munoz-H
More
               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 01-50697
                        Conference Calendar



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE HUGO MUNOZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as
Jose Hugo Sanchez-Vasquez,

                                           Defendant-Appellant.

                        --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Western District of Texas
                      USDC No. DR-01-CR-162-1
                        --------------------
                            June 18, 2002

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

PER CURIAM:*

     Bryan P. Cartall, counsel appointed to represent Jose Hugo

Munoz-Hernandez, has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and has

filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
(1967).   Munoz-Hernandez has not filed a response.    Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal.     Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from




     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
                          No. 01-20376
                               -2-

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

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