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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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?