Case ID: f-appx_578/html/0445-01.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. Adriana Elizabeth TREVINO, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adriana Elizabeth Diaz-De Trevino, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 13-41298, 13-41308
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 20, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Luis Antonio Figueroa, Esq., Law Office of Luis Antonio Figueroa, Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Adriana Elizabeth Diaz-De Trevino appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of her term of supervised release and appeals her conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. We granted the Government’s unopposed motion to consolidate these cases on appeal.

Case No. 13-41298

We review for plain error Diaz-De Trevino’s argument that the district court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the revocation sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009); United States v. Fernandez-Cusco, 447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir.2006). Although the district court provided reasons for its sentence, little explanation is required for a within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.2005). Diaz-De Trevino’s attempt to show plain error is even more difficult as she challenges a revocation sentence, and we have “not yet required district courts to expressly state their reasons for selecting a revocation sentence.” United States v. Cantrell, 236 Fed.Appx. 66, 69 (5th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (unpublished). For these reasons, Diaz-De Trevino can show no error, plain or otherwise. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423.

The judgment in No. 13-41298 is AFFIRMED.

Case No. 13-U308

Counsel appointed to represent Diaz-De Trevino on appeal in her illegal reentry case has filed a motion to withdraw and 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). Diaz-De Trevino has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and the relevant portions of the record. 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 in No. 13-41308 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.