Case: 13-50021       Document: 00512347871         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/20/2013




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          August 20, 2013
                                     No. 13-50021
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PEDRO FLORES MONDRAGON,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:12-CR-184-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Flores Mondragon (Flores) has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 

 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

 (5th
Cir. 2011). Flores has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Flores’s response.
We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous
issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 13-50021   Document: 00512347871    Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/20/2013

                               No. 13-50021

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                     2