     Case: 17-50639      Document: 00514455735         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/02/2018




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 17-50639                          FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                     May 2, 2018
                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL MEDINA-REYES,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:93-CR-8-1


Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Medina-Reyes 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).      Medina-Reyes has filed a response.             We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
as Medina-Reyes’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-50639   Document: 00514455735   Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/02/2018


                              No. 17-50639

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
