
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ruben SOSA-BALDERAMA, also known as Oscar Armando Funez-Lopez, also known as Anulfo Mata, also known as Ruben Soza Balderama, also known as Arnulfo Mata-Martinez, also known as Ruben Balderama Sosa, also known as Carlos Humberto Martinez Lopez, also known as Luis Alonso Padilla Lopez, also known as Cesar Cruz Padilla, also known as Oscar Armando Funez Lopes, also known as Roberto Figueroa Lopez, also known as Enrique Carcamo, also known as Juan Ramon Bardales Cruz, also known as Oscar Ruben Balderrama Sosa, also known as Oscar A. Funez, also known as Ruben Soza-Balderama, also known as Oscar Armando Funez, also known as Ruben Sosa Balderama, also known as Ruben S. Balderama, also known as Oscar R. Balderama Soza, also known as Ruben Bardales-Cruz, also known as Cesar Cruz-Padilla, also known as Oscar A. Funez-Lopez, also known as Carlos H. Martinez-Lopez, also known as Oscar R. Balderrama-Sosa, also known as Juan R. Bardales-Cruz, also known as Cesar Cruz, also known as Roberto Figueroa-Lopez, also known as Oscar A. Funez-Lopes, also known as Robert F. Lopez, also known as Arnulfo Mata, also known as Luis A. Padilla-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-20442
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 18, 2013.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ruben Sosa-Balderama (Sosa) 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). Sosa 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     