Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Prado, 05-10660 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 05-10660 Visitors: 30
Filed: Dec. 12, 2006
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 December 12, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-10660 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MARIO PRADO, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-254-2 - Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent
More
                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                                              F I L E D
                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                December 12, 2006

                                                           Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                   Clerk
                             No. 05-10660
                         Conference Calendar


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO PRADO,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

                       --------------------
           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 3:04-CR-254-2
                       --------------------

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario

Prado has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

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

independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Prado’s

response, discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.       Counsel’s

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

further responsibilities, 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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