United States v. Castro

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Castro. Read the opinion of the Court — 30 F.4th 240
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 27, 2022·No. 21-40545·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-40545 Document: 00516182287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED January 27, 2022 No. 21-40545 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Nicolas Castro, Jr.,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CR-1798-1

Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nicolas Castro, Jr., has moved for 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). Castro has not filed a response. We have reviewed

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-40545 Document: 00516182287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2022

No. 21-40545

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. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Castro, (5th Cir. 2022).

United States v. Castro (United States v. Castro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)