     Case: 10-30528     Document: 00511514866          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/21/2011




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 21, 2011
                                     No. 10-30528
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROY LEE DAVIS,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 3:09-CR-104-1


Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Roy Lee Davis 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). Davis has
filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of
the record reflected therein, as well as Davis’s response.                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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-30528   Document: 00511514866   Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/21/2011

                               No. 10-30528

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




                                     2
