USA v. Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41244 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK, Judge: CH, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 05/09/2017 for Appellant Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda [8411207-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. H. Michael Sokolow [8381717-2] [16-41244]
Case: 16-41244
Document: 00513956430
Page: 1
Date Filed: 04/18/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41244
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 18, 2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
v.
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-CEPEDA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:08-CR-1099-1
Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio RodriguezCepeda 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). Rodriguez-Cepeda has filed a response. We have
reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein, as well as Rodriguez-Cepeda’s response. We concur with counsel’s
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41244
Document: 00513956430
Page: 2
Date Filed: 04/18/2017
No. 16-41244
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, RodriguezCepeda’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2; United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
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?