USA v. Adriana Trevino


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 United States v. Cantrell, 236 Fed Appx. 66, 69 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (unpublished).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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?