     Case: 09-40812     Document: 00511149740          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/22/2010




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

                                                 FILED
                                                                            June 22, 2010
                                     No. 09-40812
                                  Conference Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCO ANTONIO NUNEZ-RODEA,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:09-CR-330-1


Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marco Antonio
Nunez-Rodea has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Nunez-Rodea has not
filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief
discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Moreover, Nunez-Rodea’s removal
from the United States rendered moot any issues as to his sentence. See United
States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly,

       *
         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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-40812   Document: 00511149740 Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/22/2010
                                No. 09-40812

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR.
R. 42.2.




                                     2
