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Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 24, 2021·No. 20-11115·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-11115 Document: 00515912971 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021

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

FILED June 24, 2021 No. 20-11115 Lyle W. Cayce Conference Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Torrence Christopher Thomas,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-98-2

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Torrence Christopher 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

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-11115 Document: 00515912971 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021

No. 20-11115

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. 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)