USA v. Hugo Espinoza-Gonzalez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-40709 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: EBC Mandate pull date is 07/07/2011 for Appellant Hugo Espinoza-Gonzalez; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Robert Gerard Arrambide, Esq. [6679809-2] [10-40709]

Case: 10-40709

Document: 00511510762

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/16/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 10-40709
Summary Calendar

June 16, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
HUGO ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ, also known as Joel Albert Espinoza,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:09-CR-217-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo EspinozaGonzalez 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). Espinoza-Gonzalez has filed a response. The record
is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of EspinozaGonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally
“cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-40709

Document: 00511510762

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/16/2011

No. 10-40709
the 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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
as Espinoza-Gonzalez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the
appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the
motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.

2