     Case: 18-11336      Document: 00514984160         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/05/2019




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

                                    No. 18-11336                            FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                     June 5, 2019
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,

                                                 Defendant–Appellant.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:18-CR-52-1


Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anthony 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). 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


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-11336    Document: 00514984160    Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/05/2019


                                No. 18-11336

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.




                                      2
