*1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[*]

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Estrada- Carrizales 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). ^[1] Estrada-Carrizales has not filed a response. We *2 Case: 16-40253 Document: 00513792638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2016

No. 16-40253

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 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

2

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

[1] We conclude that the Court’s decision in Mathis v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), issued after the FPD filed its brief, does not necessitate further briefing regarding the analysis of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 644(D)(1).