Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro AGUILAR-AGUILAR, Also Known as Martin Morales-Orozco, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-07
Citations: 654 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 15-51013
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro AGUILAR-AGUILAR, Also Known as Martin Morales-Orozco, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 206–207

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro AGUILAR-AGUILAR, Also Known as Martin Morales-Orozco, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-51013
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 7, 2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Ramiro Aguilar-Aguilar, Big Spring, TX, Pro Se, (
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ramiro Aguilar-Aguilar 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). Aguilar-Aguilar has filed a response.
We have reviewed counsel's brief, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Aguilar-Aguilar's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. In his response, Aguilar-Aguilar challenges, inter alia, the drug-trafficking enhancement; he maintains that his New Mexico conviction of possession with intent to deliver does not qualify as a drug-trafficking offense under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 because it does not require remuneration. That contention is foreclosed, see United States v. Martinez-Lugo, 782 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 533, 193 L.Ed.2d 426 (2015), but by raising the issue, Aguilar-Aguilar has preserved it for further review.
The 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.