677 F. App'x 187
5th Cir.
2017

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul SAUCEDO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41719

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 21, 2017

187

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Dan Ryan Locker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Raul Saucedo, Jr., Pro Se

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Raul Saucedo, Jr., 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). Saucedo has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel‘s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Saucedo‘s response. 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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis VALLE-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10072

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 21, 2017

187

Conference Calendar

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender‘s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Jose Luis Valle-Ramirez raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Torres-Jaime, 821 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 1, 2016) (No. 16-5853). In Torres-Jaime, we held that a Georgia conviction for aggravated assault qualifies as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 (2014). Torres-Jaime, 821 F.3d at 580-85. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). In Gonzalez-Longoria, we held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), which defines a crime of violence when incorporated by reference into § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C), is not unconstitutionally vague on its face in light of Johnson v. United States, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d at 672. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Nevertheless, the written judgment contains a clerical error in that it identifies Valle-Ramirez‘s statute of conviction as 8 U.S.C. § 1324, rather than § 1326. We therefore REMAND for correction of the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979).

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raphael GARCIA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10072

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 21, 2017

188

Conference Calendar

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Raphael Garcia, Jr., Pro Se

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raphael Garcia, Jr., 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). Garcia 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, coun-

Notes

*
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. 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. 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.