     Case: 18-40367      Document: 00514825434         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/06/2019




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

                                    No. 18-40367                               FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                    February 6, 2019
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MISAEL RODRIGUEZ-SANTOYO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:17-CR-647-1


Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Misael Rodriguez-Santoyo 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-Santoyo 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


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-40367    Document: 00514825434    Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/06/2019


                                No. 18-40367

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
