Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50420/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50420-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Delgadillo-Nunez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50420

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL DELGADILLO-NUNEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-1582-3

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Raul Delgadillo-Nunez 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). Delgadillo-Nunez has not filed a response.

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

reflected therein. Although counsel states that Delgadillo-Nunez’s appeal 

 

* 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

June 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50420 Document: 00513552307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2016
No. 15-50420

2

waiver is valid, counsel does not discuss the validity of the appeal waiver or 

district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An 

appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s 

compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders

brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 

2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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 IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-50420 Document: 00513552307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2016