
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Alfonso RODRIGUEZ GARCIA, also known as Jose De Jesus Leba, also known as Ricardo Campos, also known as Jose M. Cortez-Cortez, also known as Jose D. Leba, also known as Nelson Flores, also known as Jose Cortez, also known as Abel P. Vasquez, also known as Jose Cortez-Martin, also known as Jose Alfonso Rodriguez-Garcia, also known as Oscar Rolando Perez, also known as Jose Martin Cortez-Cortez, also known as Jose Elberto Garcia, also known as Jose Heriberto Garcia-Rodriguez, also known as Jose Heriberto Rodriguez-Garcia, also known as Oscar Ramirez-Perez, also known as Jose Edelberto Garcia, also known as Abel Vasquez-Teaz, also known as Jose Alfonso Rodriguez, also known as Francisco Garcia, also known as Jose Edilberto Rodriguez-Garcia, also known as Jose Garcia, also known as Jose Rodriguez Garcia, also known as Oscar Rolando Ramirez-Perez, also known as Jose Rodriguez-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-20656
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 14, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Alfonso Rodriguez Garcia 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). Garcia has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     