United States v. Warren

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Warren. Read the opinion of the Court — 986 F.3d 557
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided July 15, 2021·No. 21-10298·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-10298 Document: 00515939268 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/15/2021

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

FILED No. 21-10298 July 15, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eric Dion Warren,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:19-CR-76-1

Before Elrod, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eric Deon Warren 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). Warren has 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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-10298 Document: 00515939268 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/15/2021

No. 21-10298

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Warren’s response. 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. Warren, (5th Cir. 2021).

United States v. Warren (United States v. Warren) — 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)