Filed: Feb. 20, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 20, 2008 No. 07-40452 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CAMILO MARTINEZ, JR Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-583-1 Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Camilo
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 20, 2008 No. 07-40452 Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CAMILO MARTINEZ, JR Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-583-1 Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Camilo ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 20, 2008
No. 07-40452
Conference Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
CAMILO MARTINEZ, JR
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:06-CR-583-1
Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Camilo Martinez, Jr.,
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez has not filed a response. Our
independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous
issue 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.