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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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