     Case: 15-41296      Document: 00513629883         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/09/2016




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

                                    No. 15-41296                                FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                         August 9, 2016
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS FLORES,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:05-CR-71-2


Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Juan Carlos Flores 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).
Flores has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant
portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Flores’s response. We concur
with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-41296    Document: 00513629883    Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/09/2016


                                No. 15-41296

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. Flores’s motion to appoint new
counsel is DENIED.




                                      2
