USA v. Miguel Zamora
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-20301 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: JLD , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 10/30/2013 for Appellant Miguel Zamora; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Neal Davis, III, Esq. [7389130-2] [10-20301]
Date Filed: 10/09/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
October 9, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-400-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Zamora 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).
Zamora has filed a response. To the extent that Zamora raises claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow
consideration of his claims at this time; such claims generally “cannot be
resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] ha[ve] not been raised before the
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 10/09/2013
district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of
the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as
Zamora’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.
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?