USA v. Gonazlo Delgado Razo, No. 15-20251 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-20251 Document: 00513323714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-20251 Summary Calendar FILED December 29, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GONAZLO DELGADO RAZO, also known as Carlos Israel Gamez, also known as Armando Salinas, also known as Gonzalo Razo, also known as Gonzalo Razo-Delgado, also known as Gonzalo Delgado Raso, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-393-1 Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gonazlo Delgado Razo 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). Razo has not filed a response, has completed the confinement portion of his sentence, and has been removed from the United 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-20251 Document: 00513323714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2015 No. 15-20251 States. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review even if the challenge to his sentence is not moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 381-83 (5th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 789 F.3d 625 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 803 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2015). 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

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.