USA v. Alberto Ortiz-Vasquez


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-10873 Dismissed as frivolous Judge: WED , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 07/07/2015 for Appellant Alberto Ortiz-Vasquez; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Alberto Ortiz-Vasquez [7800868-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Jerry Van Beard, Esq. [7786740-2] [14-10873]

Download PDF
Case: 14-10873 Document: 00513080119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-10873 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 16, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ALBERTO ORTIZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-50-4 Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto OrtizVasquez 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). Ortiz-Vasquez has filed a response seeking the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ortiz-Vasquez’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-10873 Document: 00513080119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015 No. 14-10873 response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Ortiz-Vasquez’s request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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?