Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10248/USCOURTS-ca5-16-10248-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josimar Badillo-Ortiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10248

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSIMAR BADILLO-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-236-3

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Josimar Badillo-Ortiz has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Badillo-Ortiz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Badillo-Ortiz’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10248 Document: 00513805086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-10248

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Badillo-Ortiz’s response. In his response, BadilloOrtiz disputes the drug quantity for which he was held accountable. BadilloOrtiz’s trial counsel did not object to the drug quantity at sentencing. Because 

drug quantity is a factual finding, and Badillo-Ortiz failed to properly object in 

the district court, Badillo-Ortiz’s drug quantity challenge cannot succeed on 

plain error review. See United States v. Conn, 657 F.3d 280, 284-86 (5th Cir. 

2011). We therefore agree with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents 

no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the 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.

 Case: 16-10248 Document: 00513805086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016