United States v. Jose Valle-RamirezUnited States v. Jose Valle-Ramirez
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.
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
Nevertheless, the written judgment contains a clerical error in that it identifies Valle-Ramirez‘s statute of conviction as
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-