     Case: 17-11283      Document: 00514550692         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/11/2018




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


                                    No. 17-11283                             FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                     July 11, 2018
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID HERNANDEZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:15-CR-545-1


Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, AND HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent David Hernandez 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).
Hernandez 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.


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-11283      Document: 00514550692   Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/11/2018


                                 No. 17-11283

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
