USA v. Sanchez-Oveida

Filing 920090904

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-20814 Summary Calendar September 4, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff­Appellee, v. ALEJADRO SANCHEZ-OVEIDA, also known as Fernando Ortiz Hernandez, also known as Guadalupe Munoz Hernandez, also known as Alejandro Ortiz Sanchez, also known as Alejandro Sanchez Oveida, Defendant­Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CR-293-ALL Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejadro SanchezOveida has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sanchez-Oveida has filed a response and has moved for appointment of new counsel and to proceed pro se on appeal. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Sanchez-Oveida'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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. * No. 08-20814 response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Because Sanchez-Oveida did not raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel below and the district court did not hear evidence regarding an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the record is insufficient for this court to review Sanchez-Oveida's ineffectiveassistance claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. Sanchez-Oveida's motions for appointment of new counsel and to proceed pro se on appeal are DENIED. The APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?