UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40617
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
OSCAR NAVARRO-GALLARDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(No. M-00-CR-552-1)
November 7, 2001
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Counsel for Navarro-Gallado moves to withdraw, noting that
Navarro-Gallado pled guilty to the charge of illegal reentry into
the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and arguing that there is
no issue that merits appellate review. Counsel’s motion was
delivered to Navarro-Gallado, who has not responded. “[I]f
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a
conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court
and request permission to withdraw.” Anders v. Calfornia, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967). In advising the Court that his case is
without merit, counsel should isolate possibly important issues
and provide citations to pertinent authority and the record.
After having reviewed counsel’s submission, any points raised by
appellant himself, and the record, we may grant the motion to
withdraw and dismiss the appeal. See id.; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Our review of the record and of counsel’s excellent Anders
brief shows there to be no colorable issue for appeal. At the
plea hearing, the district court explained to Navarro-Gallado
that he could receive as many as 20 years’ imprisonment along
with three years’ supervised release were he to pled guilty, and
that we was facing a fine of up to $250,000 and a $100
assessment. Through an interpreter Navarro-Gallado acknowledged
the court’s admonition and also that he had been previously
convicted of an aggravated felony and was deported from the
United States for that crime. He admitted to having attempted to
reenter unlawfully. Navarro-Gallado was not advised of the
consequences of violating the conditions of supervised release.
Any error caused by that omission was harmless, however, for term
of imprisonment he ended up receiving, almost four years’, plus
three years’ were he to violate the conditions of supervised
2
release, is still less than the 20 years’ he was warned that he
could receive. See United States v. Hekimain, 975 F.2d 1098,
1102-03 (5th Cir. 1992).
Navarro-Gallado’s sentencing likewise does not raise any
cognizable issue for appeal. The district court correctly
determined his criminal history score (6), criminal history
category (III), and total offense level (21). The resulting
imprisonment range was 46 to 57 months’, and Navarro-Gallado
received the minimum term. The district court refused to depart
from the guidelines, but we will not review such a decision
unless it was based on an incorrect legal determination. See
United States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 94-95 (5th Cir. 1994).
The district court’s was not.
Motion GRANTED. Appeal DISMISSED.
3