USA v. Adriana Trevino

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-41298 Affirmed 13-41308 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 09/10/2014 for Appellants Adriana Elizabeth Trevino and Adriana Elizabeth Diaz-De Trevino; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Luis Antonio Figueroa, Esq. [7606916-2] in 13-41308 [13-41298, 13-41308]

Case: 13-41298

Document: 00512739949

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/20/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-41298
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 20, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ADRIANA ELIZABETH TREVINO,
Defendant-Appellant
_____________________
Cons. w/ No.13-41308
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ADRIANA ELIZABETH DIAZ-DE TREVINO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:11-CR-693-1
USDC No. 5:13-CR-345-1

Case: 13-41298

Document: 00512739949

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/20/2014

No. 13-41298
c/w No. 13-41308
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Adriana Elizabeth Diaz-De Trevino appeals the sentence imposed
following the revocation of her term of supervised release and appeals her
conviction and sentence for illegal reentry. We granted the Government’s
unopposed motion to consolidate these cases on appeal.
Case No. 13-41298
We review for plain error Diaz-De Trevino’s argument that the district
court procedurally erred by failing to adequately explain the revocation
sentence. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States
v. Fernandez–Cusco, 447 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006). Although the district
court provided reasons for its sentence, little explanation is required for a
within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th
Cir. 2005). Diaz-De Trevino’s attempt to show plain error is even more difficult
as she challenges a revocation sentence, and we have “not yet required district
courts to expressly state their reasons for selecting a revocation sentence.”
United States v. Cantrell, 236 Fed Appx. 66, 69 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)
(unpublished). For these reasons, Diaz-De Trevino can show no error, plain or
otherwise. See Puckett, 566 U.S. at 135.
The judgment in No. 13-41298 is AFFIRMED.
Case No. 13-41308
Counsel appointed to represent Diaz-De Trevino on appeal in her illegal
reentry case has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in accordance with

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.
*

2

Case: 13-41298

Document: 00512739949

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/20/2014

No. 13-41298
c/w No. 13-41308
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Diaz-De Trevino has not filed a response.
We have reviewed counsel’s Anders brief and the relevant portions of the
record. 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 in No. 13-41308 IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

3