United States v. Rodriguez

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Rodriguez. Read the opinion of the Court — 114 F.3d 46
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 11, 2000·No. 99-40644·Unpublished

Opinion

No. 99-40644 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-40644 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

ERMELINDA RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-98-CR-481-01 -------------------- April 7, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ermelinda

Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Rodriguez did not file a response to counsel’s motion to

withdraw. Our independent review of counsel’s brief and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 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.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

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

United States v. Rodriguez, (5th Cir. 2000).

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)