     Case: 17-40604      Document: 00514545085         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/09/2018




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 17-40604                             July 9, 2018
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BALTAZAR RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ, also known as Abuelo, also known as
El Viejo,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:13-CR-38-2


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Baltazar Rodriguez-Vasquez 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). Rodriguez-Vasquez has not filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We



       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-40604    Document: 00514545085    Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/09/2018


                                No. 17-40604

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




                                      2
