     Case: 13-20087      Document: 00512693255         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/10/2014




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

                                    No. 13-20087
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                            July 10, 2014
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IVAN CARVAJAL, also known as Esco,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:11-CR-770


Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Carvajal has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th
Cir. 2011). Carvajal has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs
and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Carvajal’s
response. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-20087    Document: 00512693255     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/10/2014


                                 No. 13-20087

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw is GRANTED, Carvajal’s motion to proceed pro se, to file a
supplemental brief, and for release of the record and exhibits is DENIED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
