USA v. Abel Lopez
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40702 Dismissed as frivolous] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 07/08/2015 for Appellant Abel Lopez; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Abel Lopez [7783232-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Rolando Garza [7770174-2] [14-40702]
Case: 14-40702
Document: 00513082728
Page: 1
Date Filed: 06/17/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-40702
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 17, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
v.
ABEL LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:14-CR-96-1
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Abel Lopez 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).
Lopez has filed a response and moves for the appointment of new counsel. We
have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein, as well as Lopez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40702
Document: 00513082728
Page: 2
Date Filed: 06/17/2015
No. 14-40702
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. Lopez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
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?