United States v. Eduardo Aleman-Brieva

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 30, 2019
• Docket: 18-50948
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-50947 Document: 00515054447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-50947 FILED c/w No. 18-50948 July 30, 2019 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDUARDO ALEMAN-BRIEVA, also known as Francisco Javier Magdaleno- Vasquez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-396-1 USDC No. 4:18-CR-204-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduardo Aleman- Brieva 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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-50947 Document: 00515054447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2019

No. 18-50947 c/w No. 18-50948

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Aleman-Brieva has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the records reflected therein. These consolidated appeals involve the revocation of a term of supervised release and a new conviction for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Pursuant to United States v. Garcia, 483 F.3d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2007), the Anders brief states that Aleman-Brieva wishes to appeal only his sentence for the new marijuana conviction. Although counsel has included a copy of a document signed by Aleman-Brieva, this document does not make it clear whether he intends to forgo a challenge only to his plea for the marijuana conviction or to both that conviction and the revocation of his supervised release. Nevertheless, the record includes the transcripts we need to review the record independently, and our review has not uncovered any nonfrivolous basis for appeal of either proceeding. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present 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 APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.