Filed: Aug. 25, 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 August 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41307 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SERVANDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-59-ALL - Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel for Servando Rodriguez has moved f
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-41307 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SERVANDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-59-ALL - Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Counsel for Servando Rodriguez has moved fo..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-41307
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERVANDO RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-59-ALL
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel for Servando Rodriguez has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rodriguez has not filed a
response to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the
brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
Accordingly, counsel’s 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.