United States v. Thomas

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Thomas. Read the opinion of the Court — 997 F.3d 603
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 1, 2021·No. 20-40047·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-40047 Document: 00515881734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2021

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

FILED June 1, 2021 No. 20-40047 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eric Desimond Thomas,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:18-CR-1223-1

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Desimond Thomas 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). Thomas 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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-40047 Document: 00515881734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2021

No. 20-40047

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. Thomas, (5th Cir. 2021).

United States v. Thomas (United States v. Thomas) — 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)