     Case: 11-10928     Document: 00511891356         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/19/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           June 19, 2012
                                     No. 11-10928
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN DARIO PAZ-BENITEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:11-CR-57-1


Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ruben Dario Paz-
Benitez 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). Paz-Benitez 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-10928   Document: 00511891356   Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/19/2012

                              No. 11-10928

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




                                    2
