USA v. Eliupter Arzate
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40082 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 01/06/2015 for Appellant Eliupter Arzate; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Eliupter Arzate [7692952-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Timothy William Crooks [7639668-2] [14-40082]
Case: 14-40082
Document: 00512871193
Page: 1
Date Filed: 12/16/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40082
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 16, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
v.
ELIUPTER ARZATE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:13-CR-808-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eliupter Arzate 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). Arzate has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Arzate’s
response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40082
Document: 00512871193
Page: 2
Date Filed: 12/16/2014
No. 14-40082
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. Arzate’s request for appointment of
new counsel is DENIED. 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?