Case: 18-41037      Document: 00515198185         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/13/2019




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 18-41037                        November 13, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO VARGAS, JR., also known as Petu, also known as Cholo,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:17-CR-588-8


Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Arturo Vargas, Jr., 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).
Vargas has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-41037      Document: 00515198185   Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/13/2019


                                 No. 18-41037

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