U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2018

United States v. Roberto Puebla Saavedra

United States v. Roberto Puebla Saavedra
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided September 13, 2018

United States v. Roberto Puebla Saavedra

Opinion

Case: 17-11358 Document: 00514641249 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-11358 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 13, 2018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERTO CARLOS PUEBLA SAAVEDRA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:16-CR-357-3

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Carlos Puebla Saavedra 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). Puebla Saavedra has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Counsel has not clearly certified, pursuant to United States v.

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-11358 Document: 00514641249 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2018

No. 17-11358 Acquaye, 452 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2006), whether the Government intends to enforce the appeal waiver. Counsel’s statement that he “has no indication that the Government will fail to invoke [the] appellate waiver” does not adequately show enforceability of the waiver. See id. at 382. Even so, we concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for review as to Puebla Saavedra’s conviction or sentence, and we therefore pretermit the non-jurisdictional waiver issue. See United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006). 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.