     Case: 18-50268      Document: 00514946045         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/07/2019




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

                                                                                 FILED
                                    No. 18-50268                              May 7, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KAREL MACHADO-ALMEIDA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:16-CR-1386-1


Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Karel Machado-Almeida 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). Machado-Almeida has not filed a response. Although Machado-
Almeida remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the
term of imprisonment. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-50268     Document: 00514946045     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/07/2019


                                  No. 18-50268

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 GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED
in part as frivolous, see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, see United States
v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).




                                        2
