     Case: 12-50666       Document: 00512278567         Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/18/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                           June 18, 2013
                                     No. 12-50666
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MANDIS CHARLES BARROW, also known as Twin,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:10-CR-345-1


Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Mandis Charles Barrow 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). Barrow has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Barrow’s
response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-50666   Document: 00512278567   Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/18/2013

                              No. 12-50666

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




                                    2
