Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0283-01.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. Jose PEQUENO-GARCIA, also known as Jose Tomas Pequeno-Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-50103 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Date Filed: 10/13/2016
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX.
    Jose Pequeno-Garcia, Pro Se, Big Spring, TX.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Pequeno-Garcia 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). Counsel also moves to extend the time for filing an amended brief. Pequeno-Garcia has filed a response to the Anders brief and moves for the appointment of substitute counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Pequeno-Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review.

In his response, Pequeno-Garcia first argues that his prior deportation was unlawful due to defects in the removal proceedings and therefore could not serve as a predicate for his instant illegal reentry offense. Such a challenge does not present a nonfrivolous issue for appeal because it has been waived by Pequeno-Garcia’s voluntary and unconditional guilty plea. See United States v. Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 1010, 1012 (5th Cir. 2008). Pequeno-Gar-cia’s remaining arguments challenging the calculation of his criminal history score and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence also do not raise a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(1); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a); United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel’s motion to extend the time for filing an amended brief is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Pequeno-Garcia’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 
      
       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.