USA v. Alejandro Garcia-Bustamante

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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