     Case: 10-20846     Document: 00511803451         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/28/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          March 28, 2012
                                     No. 10-20846
                                   Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

MARTIN LOPEZ CERVANTES, also known as Martin Lopez,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:10-CR-312-1


Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Martin Lopez
Cervantes 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). Lopez Cervantes 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


       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-20846   Document: 00511803451    Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/28/2012

                               No. 10-20846

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




                                     2
