Case: 10-11175 Document: 00511571901 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 15, 2011
No. 10-11175
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SANDRA PATRICIA MONTOYA-AMAYA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-66-7
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Sandra Patricia Montoya-Amaya
(Montoya) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Montoya has not filed a response.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein. Counsel’s brief substantially complies in most respects with
the standards set forth in United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
However, we note that counsel’s examination of whether the district court
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-11175 Document: 00511571901 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2011
No. 10-11175
properly determined Montoya’s advisory sentencing range in light of the
contested findings made relative to her offense level fails to include citations to
relevant legal authority. Ordinarily, counsel should cite not only to the
applicable Sentencing Guideline and to those portions of the record which
support the district court’s findings, but also to pertinent case law in support of
the Guideline adjustments. Nevertheless, in light of our review of counsel’s brief
and the relevant portions of the record, we concur with counsel’s ultimate
assessment that the appeal presents 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 APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
2