USA v. Jorge Vasquez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41085 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK , Judge: CH , Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 05/09/2017 for Appellant Jorge Mauricio Vasquez; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Timothy William Crooks [8355343-2] [16-41085]

Case: 16-41085

Document: 00513956138

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41085
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 18, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
JORGE MAURICIO VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-323-1
Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Mauricio
Vasquez 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). Vasquez has filed a response. We have reviewed
counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
as Vasquez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41085

Document: 00513956138

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/18/2017

No. 16-41085
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 1 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.

The district court did not err by declining to apply a sentencing guidelines range
provided by a guidelines amendment that would go into effect more than three months after
Vasquez’s sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A) (requiring district courts to consider,
except in remanded cases, the sentencing range provided by the guidelines “in effect on the
date the defendant is sentenced”); see also United States v. Caro-Alarcon, 420 F. App’x 397,
397-98 (5th Cir. 2011).
1

2