Filed: Jun. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-41207 Document: 00514533472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-41207 FILED Summary Calendar June 28, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUDY MANUEL MENDEZ-DIAZ, Also Known as Raudy Manuel Mendez, Also Known as Raudy Mendez Diaz, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 5:17-
Summary: Case: 17-41207 Document: 00514533472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-41207 FILED Summary Calendar June 28, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAUDY MANUEL MENDEZ-DIAZ, Also Known as Raudy Manuel Mendez, Also Known as Raudy Mendez Diaz, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 5:17-C..
More
Case: 17-41207 Document: 00514533472 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-41207 FILED
Summary Calendar June 28, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff−Appellee,
versus
RAUDY MANUEL MENDEZ-DIAZ,
Also Known as Raudy Manuel Mendez, Also Known as Raudy Mendez Diaz,
Defendant−Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
No. 5:17-CR-314-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Raudy Mendez-Diaz has moved for
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 17-41207 Document: 00514533472 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2018
No. 17-41207
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores,
632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Mendez-Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
the relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that
the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,
the 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