     Case: 11-40718     Document: 00512021021         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/16/2012




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         October 16, 2012
                                     No. 11-40718
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO MELENDEZ-RODRIGUEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:11-CR-132-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The counsel appointed to represent Arturo Melendez-Rodriguez 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). Melendez-Rodriguez has not filed a response. We 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

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
  Case: 11-40718   Document: 00512021021   Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/16/2012

                              No. 11-40718

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                    2
