Filed: Jan. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-20160 Document: 00512477803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-20160 FILED December 19, 2013 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VICTOR DANIEL CAMEY-CID, Also Known as Victor Daniel Camey, Also Known as Victor Camey, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:12-CR
Summary: Case: 13-20160 Document: 00512477803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-20160 FILED December 19, 2013 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus VICTOR DANIEL CAMEY-CID, Also Known as Victor Daniel Camey, Also Known as Victor Camey, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:12-CR-..
More
Case: 13-20160 Document: 00512477803 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-20160
FILED
December 19, 2013
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
VICTOR DANIEL CAMEY-CID,
Also Known as Victor Daniel Camey, Also Known as Victor Camey,
Defendant−Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 4:12-CR-633-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Victor Daniel Camey-Cid has moved
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-20160 Document: 00512477803 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2013
No. 13-20160
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Cali-
fornia,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores,
632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.
2011). Camey-Cid has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief
and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with coun-
sel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate
review. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2