USA v. Victor Barahona-Diaz
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-41223 Dismissed as Frivolous ] Judge: CDK , Judge: EGJ , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 08/30/2011 for Appellant Victor Barahona-Diaz; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Margaret Christina Ling [6771818-2] [10-41223]
Case: 10-41223
Document: 00511566844
Page: 1
Date Filed: 08/09/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 10-41223
Summary Calendar
August 9, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
VICTOR BARAHONA-DIAZ, also known as Francis Arnoldo Martinez-Portillo,
also known as Nelson Montesino, also known as Israel Torres-Pagan, also known
as Raul Diaz Arce, also known as Victor Diaz, also known as Israel Pagan
Torres, also known as Diablo Chavery,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:10-CR-684-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Barahona-Diaz
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). Barahona-Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-41223
Document: 00511566844
Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/09/2011
No. 10-41223
counsel’s assessment that the 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?