Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-20303/USCOURTS-ca5-09-20303-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julio Cesar Rodriguez-Duberney
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-20303

Summary Calendar

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-283-1

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 (1967). Rodriguez-Duberney has filed a response. Our

independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Rodriguez-Duberney’s

response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. This court has previously

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 22, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-20303 Document: 00511058092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010
No. 09-20303

2

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.

 Case: 09-20303 Document: 00511058092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010