     Case: 13-50372       Document: 00512420306         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/25/2013




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         October 25, 2013
                                     No. 13-50372
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR LEMONT TROTTY, also known as Pinky,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:11-CR-25-1


Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The attorney appointed to represent Victor Lemont Trotty 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).
Trotty 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 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-50372      Document: 00512420306   Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/25/2013

                                 No. 13-50372

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
