USA v. Jose Moctezuma-Barragan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40223 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLW , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 01/31/2017 for Appellant Jose Antonio Moctezuma-Barragan; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Scott Andrew Martin [8203077-2] [16-40223]

Case: 16-40223

Document: 00513828236

Page: 1

Date Filed: 01/10/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-40223
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
January 10, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

JOSE ANTONIO MOCTEZUMA-BARRAGAN, also known as Mario SanchezGarcia, also known as Jose Moctezuma-Barragan, also known as Jose
Moctezuma-Baragan, also known as Cleofas Moctezuma-Barragan, also known
as Rodolfo Castillo, also known as Pedro Garcia, also known as Juan Gonzales,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:15-CR-44-1
Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio
Moctezuma-Barragan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States
v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Moctezuma-Barragan has not filed a

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 16-40223

Document: 00513828236

Page: 2

Date Filed: 01/10/2017

No. 16-40223
response. We have reviewed the relevant portions of the record as well as
counsel’s Anders brief, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter, and
response to our directive for clarification. 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.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2