United States v. Villarreal

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Villarreal. Read the opinion of the Court — 87 F.4th 689
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 20, 2023·No. 22-10840·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-10840 Document: 00516719787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10840 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 20, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Amber Dawn Villarreal,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:22-CR-19-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Amber Dawn Villarreal 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). Villarreal has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-10840 Document: 00516719787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2023

No. 22-10840

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. Villarreal, (5th Cir. 2023).

United States v. Villarreal (United States v. Villarreal) — 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)