     Case: 17-20722      Document: 00514844724         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/21/2019




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

                                    No. 17-20722                            FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                 February 21, 2019
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MATTHEW RYAN ROBINSON,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:16-CR-413-1


Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Matthew Ryan Robinson 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). Robinson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-20722    Document: 00514844724    Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/21/2019


                                No. 17-20722

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
