Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emilio De La GARZA-MONTEMAYOR, also known as Emilio Del La Garza-Montemayor, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio Montemayor DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza-Montemayor, also known as Emmillio DeLaGarza, also known as Emmillo De La Garza, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-14
Citations: 562 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 13-20207
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emilio De La GARZA-MONTEMAYOR, also known as Emilio Del La Garza-Montemayor, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio Montemayor DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza-Montemayor, also known as Emmillio DeLaGarza, also known as Emmillo De La Garza, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 562
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emilio De La GARZA-MONTEMAYOR, also known as Emilio Del La Garza-Montemayor, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio Montemayor DeLaGarza, also known as Emilio DeLaGarza-Montemayor, also known as Emmillio DeLaGarza, also known as Emmillo De La Garza, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20207
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 14, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mark Russell Yanis, Costa Mesa, CA, Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Emilio De La Garza-Montemayor 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). De La Garza-Montemayor has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as De La Garza-Montemayor's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. In his response, De La Garza-Montemayor contends, inter alia, that his below-range sentence should not be entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because his guideline sentencing range was calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, which he argues is not based on empirical evidence. That contention is foreclosed, see United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.2009), but by raising the argument De La Garza-Montemayor has preserved it for further 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.
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.