     Case: 16-40872      Document: 00513837371         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/17/2017




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 16-40872                                 FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                        January 17, 2017
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CARLOS CELAYA-CARTAJENA, also known as Carlos Alberto Rojaz,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:16-CR-128-1


Before JONES, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Carlos Celaya-
Cartajena 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). Celaya-Cartajena 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-40872    Document: 00513837371     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/17/2017


                                 No. 16-40872

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.




                                       2
