Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul DELGADILLO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-17
Citations: 652 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 15-50420
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul DELGADILLO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 652
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Raul DELGADILLO-NUNEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-50420
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/17/2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Raul Delgadillo-Nunez, Pro Se.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.