     Case: 09-20573 Document: 00511274700 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                          October 26, 2010
                                     No. 09-20573
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAIME VIGIL CASTRO, also known as Juan Perez Acosta, also known as Jaime
Vigil-Castro, also known as Jaime Vigil-Tobara, also known as Jaime Tobara
Vigil, also known as Jaime Vigil Tobara,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:09-CR-102-1


Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jaime Vigil Castro
has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).           Castro has not filed a response.            Our
independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal.       Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is



       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-20573 Document: 00511274700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2010

                               No. 09-20573

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




                                    2
