699 Fed.Appx. 374 (5th Cir. 2017), 17-20105, United States v. Lanza-Guillen

Docket Nº:17-20105
Citation:699 Fed.Appx. 374
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dennis Alexis LANZA-GUILLEN, also known as Dennis Lanza, also known as Dennis Alexis Lanza Guillen, Defendant-Appellant
Attorney:Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Dennis Alexis Lanza-Guillen, Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:October 24, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 374

699 Fed.Appx. 374 (5th Cir. 2017)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

Dennis Alexis LANZA-GUILLEN, also known as Dennis Lanza, also known as Dennis Alexis Lanza Guillen, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20105

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

October 24, 2017

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Please Refer Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 5th Cir. Rules 28.7 and 47.5.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:16-CR-43-1.

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Dennis Alexis Lanza-Guillen, Pro Se.

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:[*]

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dennis Alexis Lanza-Guillen has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lanza-Guillen has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

Page 375

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.


Notes:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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


To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP