USA v. Miguel Rangel-Vieyra, No. 16-10760 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10760 Document: 00513955858 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10760 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 18, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. MIGUEL RANGEL-VIEYRA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-260-1 Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel RangelVieyra 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). Rangel-Vieyra has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10760 Document: 00513955858 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017 No. 16-10760 The judgment reflects that Rangel-Vieyra was convicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), but the addendum to the presentence report, which the district court adopted, found that, though Rangel-Vieyra had a prior felony conviction, he did not have a prior aggravated felony conviction and thus that subsection (b)(1) applied. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is REFORMED to show that Rangel-Vieyra was convicted and sentenced under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2009). 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.