Cases

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Ricardo Urbina-Robles (“Urbina”) pled guilty to carjacking, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The District Court sentenced him to a total of 360 months in prison. Urbina appealed. Finding • no ■ error that warrants the reversal of Urbina’s conviction or sentence, we affirm.

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Alfonso Urbina 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). Urbina has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record refle

PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Angel Urbina-Luna (Ur-bina) 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). Urbina has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly

PER CURIAM.* Miguel Urbina-Guzman appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Urbina-Guzman contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offe

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3022 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Guadalupe Urbina-Rodriguez

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge: An able district court judge, without objection from defense counsel, relied on the wrong version of the Sentencing Guidelines-thereby generating the wrong sentencing range-in sentencing Urbina-Fuentes. Finding the error was plain, we vacate and remand for resentencing. I. The facts

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

*964OPINION OF THE COURT BADAMI, Judge: The main issue in this case is whether statements made by the five-year-old molestation victim to her mother and an agent, a member of the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), were admissible in evidence as excited utterances under Rule 803(2) of the Military Rules of Evidence. Appe

MEMORANDUM ** Mario Alexander Boconovick-Urbina appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Boconovick-Urbina contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment when it

756 F.Supp.2d 566 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, v. Juan CALDERON-URBINA and Jose Luis Martinez-Munoz, Defendants. No. 09 Cr. 0589(VM). United States District Court, S.D. New York. December 14, 2010. *567 Amie Nicole Ely, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Donald Joseph Yannella, III, Donald Yannella P.

MEMORANDUM ** Mario Alexander Boconovick-Urbina appeals from the 135-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(B)(vii). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Boconovick-Urbina contends that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment when it

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied. Same case below, 584 F.3d 351.

PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Wilfredo Najar-Urbina raises argu*742merits that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United State

PER CURIAM: * Jose Hernandez-Urbina appeals the 30-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States after being deported. He contends that his sentence is illegal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the United States Sentencing

538 F.2d 344 U. S.v.Urbina-Marquez No. 75-3747 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit 6/10/76 1 D.Ariz. AFFIRMED

540 U.S. 898 URBINAv.UNITED STATES. No. 03-5264. Supreme Court of United States. October 6, 2003. 1 Appeal from the C. A. 5th Cir. 2 Certiorari denied. Reported below: 65 Fed. Appx

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

ORDER Mexican citizen Rafael Luna-Urbina pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to being present in the United States unlawfully after having been removed following conviction for an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), (b)(2). The district court sentenced him to 77 months’ imprisonment, 3 years’ supervised release, and a special assessment of $100. LunaUrbina filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now seeks to w

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.