Case ID: f-appx_415/html/0528-01.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 Danilo BRIZUELA-RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-40496
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 2, 2011.
    James Lee Turner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Timothy William Crooks, H. Michael Sokolow, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Danilo Brizuela-Ramos 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). Brizuela-Ramos has filed a response. He contends that the Government breached its plea agreement with him. Specifically, Brizuela-Ramos contends that the Government failed to argue for the maximum acceptance of responsibility points. However, the plea agreement provided that the Government was not bound to that promise “should it be judged by the Government [that] the Defendant has committed ... any additional crime.” The Government presented unrebutted evidence that Brizuela-Ramos participated in an assault on a fellow inmate while in prison awaiting sentencing. This evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that the Government was released from its promise. The plea agreement did not require a conviction, as Brizuela-Ramos appears to argue.

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Brizuela-Ramos’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.