Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe PACHECO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-17
Citations: 597 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 14-50926
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe PACHECO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 597
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Noe PACHECO-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-50926
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 17, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Doyle L. Young, Law Office of Doyle L. Young, P.C., Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Noe Pacheco-Garcia, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Noe Pacheco-Garcia 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), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Pacheco-Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. However, in light of the nonreversible error in categorizing Pacheco-Garcia's Texas sexual assault conviction as an aggravated felony, the judgment of the district court is REFORMED to show that Pacheco-Garcia 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.