Case ID: f-appx_504/html/0341-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe RODRIGUEZ-ARANDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40025
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 27, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Paul Carlos Saenz, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Felipe Rodriguez-Aranda, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Felipe Rodriguez-Aranda (Rodriguez) 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). Rodriguez 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. We further note that to the extent that counsel might argue for the first time on appeal that the district court departed from the recommendation in U.S.S.G. § 5Dl.l(c) when it imposed a three-year term of supervised release, such argument would be foreclosed under this court’s recent opinion in United States v. Dominguez-Alvarado, 695 F.3d 324, 329-30 (5th Cir.2012 (5th Cir.2012). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.