Cases

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Abel Hinojosa 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). Hinojosa has not fíled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the recor

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Abel Hinojosa-Zuniga 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). Hinojosa-Zuniga has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portio

606 F.3d 875 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-1393. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Argued April 28, 2010. Decided and Filed June 9, 2010. *877 ARGUED: Jeffrey J. O'Hara, Law Office, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. Daniel Y

MEMORANDUM ** Conrado Soto Hinojosa appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Soto Hinojosa co

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Alejandro Hinojosa 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). Hinojosa has not filed a response. Our independent review of *319the record and counsel’s brief

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jose E. Hinojosa 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). Hinojosa has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jose E. Hinojosa 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). Hinojosa has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Alejandro Hinojosa 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). Hinojosa has not filed a response. Our independent review of *319the record and counsel’s brief

MEMORANDUM ** Conrado Soto Hinojosa appeals from the 210-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Soto Hinojosa co

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 10, 2007

MEMORANDUM ** Ismael Hinojosa-Benumea appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following *925his jury conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hinojosa-Benumea contends that the district court erred in impo

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 21, 2003 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III

MEMORANDUM ** Ismael Hinojosa-Benumea appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following *925his jury conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hinojosa-Benumea contends that the district court erred in impo

77 F.3d 479 U.S.v.Hinojosa* NO. 95-50552 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Jan 12, 1996 Appeal From: W.D.Tex., No. A-90-CA-112-JN 1 AFFIRMED.

109 F.3d 767 U.S.v.Hinojosa* NO. 96-40104 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Feb 24, 1997 Appeal From: S.D.Tex. , No. C-95-CR-120-1 1 AFFIRMED.

ORDER The opinion filed December 31, 1997 is withdrawn, and the attached opinion filed in its place. With this change, the panel votes to deny the petition for rehearing and reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R.App.

51 F.3d 1048 U.S.v.Hinojosa** NO. 93-2631 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Mar 27, 1995 Appeal From: N.D.Fla., No. 92-01038-GCR 1 AFFIRMED.

KING, Circuit Judge: Defendant-appellant Luis Lauro Hinojosa-Lopez appeals the sentence imposed upon him by the district court after he pled guilty to a one-count indictment charging him with unlawful presence in the United States following deportation. He claims that the district court incorrectly added sixteen points to his offense level on the basis of his prior state felony

PER CURIAM. Following his plea of guilty to four drug possession counts under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute count under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, Carlos Hinojosa-Gonzales was sentenced to 480 months in prison and 20 years of supervised release, and was fined $3 million. He appeals his sentence. We have 'jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 93-7514 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS DANIEL INOCENCIO, EVARISTO HINOJOSA, SR., DANIEL ALFONSO REYES,