Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Nuno-Tinoco, 03-10399 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-10399 Visitors: 32
Filed: Oct. 21, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-10399 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus IGNACIO NUNO-TINOCO, also known as Jose Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:02-CR-402-ALL-D - Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER C
More
                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                                               F I L E D
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 22, 2003

                                                            Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                    Clerk
                              No. 03-10399
                          Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO NUNO-TINOCO, also known as Jose Gonzalez,

                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                      --------------------
          Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Northern District of Texas
                   USDC No. 3:02-CR-402-ALL-D
                      --------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio

Nuno-Tinoco on direct appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 
386 U.S. 738
, 744 (1967).

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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