Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zacarias Ernesto ORTEGA-HUETE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-05
Citations: 605 F. App'x 453
Docket Number: No. 13-51184
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zacarias Ernesto ORTEGA-HUETE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 453–453

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Zacarias Ernesto ORTEGA-HUETE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-51184
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 5, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Leonard Christopher Morales, Counsel, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, USDC No. 3:13-CR-1586-1.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Za-carías Ernesto Ortega-Huete 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. Florets, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Ortega-Huete has not filed a response.
Ortega-Huete has been released from prison and removed to Mexico, and thus any challenge to his sentence is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 383 (5th Cir.2007). 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. Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED in part as frivolous, see 5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, see Rosenbaumr-Alanis, 483 F.3d at 383.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.