Case: 18-10271      Document: 00514770998         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/21/2018




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

                                    No. 18-10271                             FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                 December 21, 2018
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM EDWARD FRANCO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:17-CR-184-1


Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.


PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent William Edward
Franco 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). Franco has not filed a response. We have
reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected



       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-10271    Document: 00514770998     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/21/2018


                                 No. 18-10271

therein. We concur with 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