United States v. Fidencio Castillo-Saucedo , 475 F. App'x 991 ( 2012 )

Case: 12-40037 Document: 00511964085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 21, 2012
No. 12-40037
Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FIDENCIO ALBERTO CASTILLO-SAUCEDO, also known as Jose Castillo-
Espinoza,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:11-CR-1387-1
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidencio Alberto
Castillo-Saucedo 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). Castillo-Saucedo has filed a response. We
have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected
therein, as well as Castillo-Saucedo’s response. We concur with counsel’s
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40037 Document: 00511964085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
No. 12-40037
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Castillo-Saucedo’s response claims he deserves a sentence credit. District courts
are not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3585 to compute service credit. Prisoners
may seek administrative review of the computation of their credit; they may
pursue judicial review of their sentence computation only after exhausting their
administrative remedies. United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir.
1992). There is no allegation here that he exhausted his administrative
remedies regarding this claim. 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. Castillo-Saucedo’s
motion to appoint new appellate counsel is DENIED.
2