USA v. Alejandro Garcia-Bustamante


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-41251 Dismissed AS FRIVOLOUS] Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 08/30/2011 for Appellant Alejandro Garcia-Bustamante; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Alejandro Garcia-Bustamante [6791183-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Timothy William Crooks [6761608-2] [10-41251]

Download PDF
Case: 10-41251 Document: 00511565964 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-41251 Summary Calendar August 9, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ALEJANDRO GARCIA-BUSTAMANTE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-1260-1 Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro GarciaBustamante (Garcia) 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). Garcia has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Garcia’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 the district court since * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-41251 Document: 00511565964 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 No. 10-41251 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 Garcia’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Garcia’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, the 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. 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?