United States v. Richard Gonzales

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Richard Gonzales. Read the opinion of the Court — 458 F. App'x 381
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 17, 2014·No. 13-50780·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 13-50780 Document: 00512666620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50780 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED June 17, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD GONZALES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:13-CR-105-1

Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Richard Gonzales 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). Gonzales 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50780 Document: 00512666620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014

No. 13-50780

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. Richard Gonzales, (5th Cir. 2014).

United States v. Richard Gonzales (United States v. Richard Gonzales) — 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)