     Case: 18-40854      Document: 00514931272        Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/25/2019




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

                                    No. 18-40854                               FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                       April 25, 2019
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

LUCY MARQUEZ,

                                                Defendant−Appellant.




                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                                No. 5:17-CR-447-1




Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

      The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lucy Marquez has


      * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 18-40854    Document: 00514931272    Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/25/2019


                                No. 18-40854

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Marquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the
appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the
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
