     Case: 10-20156 Document: 00511355250 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2011




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                          January 19, 2011
                                     No. 10-20156
                                   Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO TORRES MOYA, also known as Francisco Torres-Moya, also
known as Francisco Moya Torres, also known as Franciso Torres Moya, also
known as Jose Quebedo, also known as Francisco Torres, also known as
Francisco Torrez Moya,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:09-CR-580-1


Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Torres
Moya has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Moya has not filed a response. Our
independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous
issue for appeal.       Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-20156 Document: 00511355250 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2011

                               No. 10-20156

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




                                    2
