USA v. Nahun Almendarez-Villafranca
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20612 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 08/07/2017 for Appellant Nahun Huberto Almendarez-Villafranca; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Scott Andrew Martin [8433311-2] [16-20612]
Case: 16-20612
Document: 00514074628
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/17/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-20612
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 17, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
NAHUN HUBERTO ALMENDAREZ-VILLAFRANCA, also known as Nahun
Almendarez, also known as Nahun Huberto Almendarez Villafranca,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CR-165-1
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nahun Huberto
Almendarez-Villafranca 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). Almendarez-Villafranca has not filed a
response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20612
Document: 00514074628
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/17/2017
No. 16-20612
record reflected therein. We concur with 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?