Case: 19-10255      Document: 00515184873         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/04/2019




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

                                    No. 19-10255                             FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                  November 4, 2019
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KEITH TEOLODO VASQUEZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:18-CR-70-1


Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Keith Teolodo
Vasquez 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). Vasquez 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


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-10255    Document: 00515184873    Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/04/2019


                                No. 19-10255

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