Case ID: f-appx_371/html/0485-01.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. Julio Cesar RODRIGUEZ-DUBERNEY, also known as Julio Cesar Duverney-Rodriguez, also known as Homereo Carmanno Rodriguez, also known as Julio Cesar Rodriguez, also known as Julio Cesar Rodriguez-Duberny, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-20303
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 22, 2010.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Julio Cesar Rodriguez-Duberney, Post, TX, pro se.
    Before BENAVIDES, PRADO and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Julio Cesar Rodriguez-Duberney 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). Rodriguez-Duberney has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Rodriguez-Duberney’s response discloses no nonfrivo-lous issue for appeal. This court has previously issued decisions holding that Rodriguez-Duberney’s prior conviction under the Travel Act constituted a drug trafficking offense for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. Rodriguez-Duberney has not shown that these decisions should be revisited despite the law of the case doctrine because “the earlier decision[s are] clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 320 and n. 3 (5th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.