Cases

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Julio Sifuentes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Sifuentes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record ref

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PER CURIAM: * This court affirmed the sentence of Noe Sifuentes-Flores (Sifuentes). United States v. Sifuentes-Flores, 145 Fed.Appx. 497, 498 (5th Cir.2005). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2

MEMORANDUM *** Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that Delfina Sifuentes Ibarra failed, as a matter of law, to make an offer of proof sufficient to meet the four requisite elements of a necessity defense. In United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2001), we outlined the procedure and requirements in establishing a necessity defense:

OPINION GWIN, District Judge. With this appeal, we decide whether the trial court erred when, guided by the U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (“Sen-*557fencing Guidelines”), it sentenced Defendant Sergio Sifuentes to a 210-month term of imprisonment, a term exceeding the statutory maximum for Sifuentes’s convictions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leonardo Chavez-Sifuentes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chavez-Sifuentes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief a

Case: 18-11149 Document: 00515243823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 18-11149 Fifth Circuit FILED

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Felipe Flores-Sifuentes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Flores-Sifuentes has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied. Same case below, 627 F.3d 161.

529 F.2d 1031 *U. S.v.Sifuentes 75-1085 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Fifth Circuit 2/10/76 1 S.D.Tex. 2 REVERSED

DECISION ARROWOOD, Judge: Tried by special court-martial, with members, the accused pleaded guilty to selling marijuana in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934. He was sentenced to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge, to be confined at hard labor for three months, to forfeit $265.00 per month for three months, and to be reduced to the grade of air

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

537 U.S. 854 SIFUENTESv.UNITED STATES. No. 01-10637. Supreme Court of United States. October 7, 2002. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. 2 C.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperisdenied. Petitioner allowed until February 2, 2015, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.* Ever Enrico Segovia-Sifuentes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty *938plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Segovia-Sifuentes complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 253 F. 3d 704.