United States v. Rodriguez-Gardea , 70 F. App'x 792 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 6, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50888
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JULIAN JAVIER RODRIGUEZ-GARDEA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-00-CR-1200-1-H
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Julian Javier Rodriguez-Gardea (“Rodriguez”) appeals his
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846. He argues that
the district court erred by not granting his motion for judgment
of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove venue
in the Western District of Texas.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-50888
-2-
Rodriguez failed to timely raise a venue objection.
See United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 392-93
(5th Cir. 2001). Thus, he did not preserve the issue for
appellate review.
This appeal lacks merit and borders on frivolity.
Accordingly, Rodriguez’s attorney is cautioned against bringing
such appeals in the future. We remind him of his obligations
to refrain from raising frivolous issues on appeal and to avail
himself of the procedures outlined in Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967) for disposing of cases that present no
nonfrivolous issues. See United States v. Humphrey, 7 F.3d 1186,
1191 (5th Cir. 1993). We also admonish him that all counsel are
subject to sanctions for bringing frivolous appeals. See United
States v. Burleson, 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th Cir. 1994). Because
Rodriguez failed to preserve the sole issue raised on appeal,
the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.