USA v. Jaime Ramos-Callero
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41601 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK, Judge: JWE, Judge: SAH. Mandate issue date is 12/06/2017 for Appellant Jaime Elario Ramos-Calleros; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Scott Andrew Martin [8435253-2] [16-41601]
Case: 16-41601
Document: 00514236274
Page: 1
Date Filed: 11/14/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41601
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 14, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAIME ELARIO RAMOS-CALLEROS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-1063-1
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jamie Elario
Ramos-Calleros 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).
Ramos-Calleros 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
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41601
Document: 00514236274
Page: 2
Date Filed: 11/14/2017
No. 16-41601
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review, especially in light of the
district court’s statement that Ramos-Calleros’s sentence was appropriate
irrespective of the Guidelines range. 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
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?