indictive Prosecution at 9). Bucci does not identify the "case" to which he is referring, nor does he provide any affidavits or further evidence to substantiate this claim. Without more, this assertion does not provide significant support for Bucci's vindictive prosecution claim.
Bucci's motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution is therefore DENIED.
Bucci's motion to dismiss, motion to dismiss Count Five of the Second Superseding Indictment on statute of limitations grounds, and motion to dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment for vindictive prosecution are each DENIED.
It is so ordered.


     Case: 12-40357       Document: 00512085297         Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/17/2012




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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                        December 17, 2012
                                     No. 12-40357
                                  Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO DELGADO-ALMAZAN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:11-CR-1946-1


Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Delgado-
Almazan 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). Delgado-Almazan has filed a response. We have
reviewed counsel’s