     Case: 11-51268     Document: 00511987759         Page: 1     Date Filed: 09/14/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        September 14, 2012
                                     No. 11-51268
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERNEST LOPEZ, also known as Neto,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeals from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:11-CR-360-5


Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Ernest Lopez 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). Lopez has
filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of
the record reflected therein, as well as Lopez’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,

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-51268   Document: 00511987759   Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/14/2012

                              No. 11-51268

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




                                    2
