     Case: 13-10135       Document: 00512473615         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/17/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 17, 2013
                                     No. 13-10135
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACOB FENTON, also known as Solo,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:12-CR-168-2


Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Jacob Fenton 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). Fenton 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 GRANTED, counsel is excused from

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10135   Document: 00512473615   Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/17/2013

                              No. 13-10135

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.




                                    2
