USA v. Raul Cesario-Mendo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40761 Dismissed as Frivolous and Reformed] Judge: CDK, Judge: JLD, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 07/26/2017 for Appellant Raul Cesario-Mendo; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Margaret Loraine Schmucker [8424537-2] [16-40761]

Case: 16-40761

Document: 00514059456

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-40761
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 5, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAUL CESARIO-MENDO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:14-CR-1613-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Raul Cesario-Mendo 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).
Cesario-Mendo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and
the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-40761

Document: 00514059456

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/05/2017

No. 16-40761
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. In light of the nonreversible error in describing the offense as a
marijuana offense, the judgment of the district court is REFORMED to show
that Cesario-Mendo was convicted and sentenced for possession of five
kilograms or more of cocaine with intent to distribute. See, e.g., United States
v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir. 2009).

2