     Case: 15-41143      Document: 00513651952         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/25/2016




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

                                    No. 15-41143                            FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                    August 25, 2016
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CROCKETT JACOB RODDAM,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 9:14-CR-9-1


Before JONES, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Crockett Jacob
Roddam 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). Roddam has not filed a response. We have
reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-41143    Document: 00513651952     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/25/2016


                                 No. 15-41143

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. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Roddam’s
motion to substitute counsel is DENIED.




                                       2
