Legal Research AI

United States v. Jason Bishop

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date filed: 2012-08-21
Citations: 475 F. App'x 960
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion
     Case: 12-10030     Document: 00511963939         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/21/2012




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                            FILED
                                                                          August 21, 2012
                                     No. 12-10030
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON BISHOP,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:11-CR-101-1


Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
        The attorney appointed to represent Jason Bishop 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). Bishop 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 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.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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