     Case: 10-40237     Document: 00511522136         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/27/2011




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           June 27, 2011
                                     No. 10-40237
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL TREVINO-VASQUEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:09-CR-4-1


Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Victor Manuel Trevino-Vasquez 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). Trevino-Vasquez has filed an untimely response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-40237   Document: 00511522136   Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/27/2011

                              No. 10-40237

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




                                    2
