Case: 14-40667      Document: 00513220468         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/06/2015




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 14-40667                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                          October 6, 2015
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NINO RODRIGUEZ, also known as Nino Ruben Rodriguez, also known as
Ruben Rodriguez-Nino, also known as Ruben Rodriguez,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 5:14-CR-191


Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nino Rodriguez has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v.
California, 

(1967), and United States v. Flores, 

(5th
Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with



       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40667    Document: 00513220468    Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/06/2015


                                No. 14-40667

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review.    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.




                                      2