USA v. Fidencio Castillo-Saucedo, No. 12-40037 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-40037 Document: 00511964085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED August 21, 2012 No. 12-40037 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FIDENCIO ALBERTO CASTILLO-SAUCEDO, also known as Jose CastilloEspinoza, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1387-1 Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidencio Alberto Castillo-Saucedo 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). Castillo-Saucedo has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Castillo-Saucedo s response. * We concur with counsel s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40037 Document: 00511964085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012 No. 12-40037 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Castillo-Saucedo s response claims he deserves a sentence credit. District courts are not authorized under 18 U.S.C. ยง 3585 to compute service credit. Prisoners may seek administrative review of the computation of their credit; they may pursue judicial review of their sentence computation only after exhausting their administrative remedies. United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992). There is no allegation here that he exhausted his administrative remedies regarding this claim. 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. Castillo-Saucedo s motion to appoint new appellate counsel is DENIED. 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.
