Case ID: f-appx_644/html/0339-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Juan ADEMO-MIRANDA, also known as Juan Enamorado, also known as Carlos Gonzalez, also known as Jose Castillo Cruz, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-41011
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 31, 2016.
    Stevan A. Buys, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Denise S. Benson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    ' Juan Ademo-Miranda, Big Spring, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ademo-Miranda has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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 (6th Cir.2011). Ademo-Miranda has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. However, the district court committed nonreversible error when it categorized Ademo-Miranda’s Texas offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which resulted in a sentence of deferred adjudication, as an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The judgment of the district court is therefore REFORMED to show that Ademo-Miranda was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367-69 (5th Cir.2009). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.