Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0313-01.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. Sandra Patricia MONTOYA-AMAYA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-11175
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2011.
    Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Catherine Ann Rushlow Dunnavant, Dunnavant & Associates, P.L.L.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Sandra Patricia Montoya-Amaya (Montoya) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Montoya has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Counsel’s brief substantially complies in most respects with the standards set forth in United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). However, we note that counsel’s examination of whether the district court properly determined Montoya’s advisory sentencing range in light of the contested findings made relative to her offense level fails to include citations to relevant legal authority. Ordinarily, counsel should cite not only to the applicable Sentencing Guideline and to those portions of the record which support the district court’s findings, but also to pertinent case law in support of the Guideline adjustments. Nevertheless, in light of our review of counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record, we concur with counsel’s ultimate 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.