USA v. Octavio Gonzalez-Lince

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40647 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ , Judge: ECP , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 03/14/2017 for Appellant Octavio Gonzalez-Lince; denying motion to remand case filed by Appellant Mr. Octavio Gonzalez-Lince [8317188-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Scott Andrew Martin [8301428-2] [16-40647]

Download PDF
Case: 16-40647 Document: 00513882950 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-40647 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 21, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. OCTAVIO GONZALEZ-LINCE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-912-1 Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Octavio GonzalezLince 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). Gonzalez-Lince has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez-Lince’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-40647 Document: 00513882950 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017 No. 16-40647 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, Gonzalez-Lince’s motion to remand is DENIED, 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?