U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2016

United States v. Martinez-Mendoza

United States v. Martinez-Mendoza
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided October 18, 2016 · Higginbotham, Higginson, Jones
669 F. App'x 741

United States v. Martinez-Mendoza

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Martinezr-Mendoza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez-Mendoza has filed a response. We *742have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Martinez-Mendoza’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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. Martinez-Mendoza’s pro se request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.