Summary
holding that District Court lacked jurisdiction to review Defendant's claim that government breached its plea agreement by failing to file a motion for sentence reduction based on defendant's substantial assistance, where the plea agreement required only that the government "consider" filing a substantial assistance motion, and defendant neither alleged nor made a substantial showing that government's refusal to file a substantial assistance motion was based on impermissible, unconstitutional motives
Summary of this case from U.S. v. MadrigalOpinion
No. 14-40531
04-16-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CHRISTOMO SANTANA-ROJAS, true name Crisostomo Santana-Rojas, Defendant-Appellant
Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CR-1002-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
The attorney appointed to represent Cristomo Santana-Rojas 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). Santana-Rojas has not filed a response.
The record reflects that Santana-Rojas wishes to appeal his sentence only. See United States v. Garcia, 483 F.3d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2007). Santana has completed the confinement portion of his sentence, however, and he has been removed from the United States and may not return. Therefore, the appeal is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis, 483 F.3d 381, 382-83 (5th Cir. 2007).
Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.