USA v. Luis Francisco-Juan, No. 17-50481 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-50481 Document: 00514413307 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-50481 Summary Calendar FILED April 3, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. LUIS FRANCISCO-JUAN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-550-1 Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Luis Francisco-Juan 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). After receiving extra time to prepare a response, Francisco-Juan has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50481 Document: 00514413307 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2018 No. 17-50481 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Our review reveals clerical errors in Sections III of the Statement of Reasons. In particular, we note the statements concerning the total offense level, criminal history category, guidelines range, and fine range. 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. This matter is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical errors in the Statement of Reasons. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36; United States v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 961, 964 (5th Cir. 1979). 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.