USA v. Michael Sala

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [10-50363 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EHJ , Judge: CES , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 07/12/2011 for Appellant Michael L Salas; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. James Randolph Smith [6681552-2] [10-50363]

Case: 10-50363

Document: 00511515345

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/21/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 10-50363
Conference Calendar

June 21, 2011
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MICHAEL LARA SALAS,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:09-CR-550-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Michael Lara Salas 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).
Salas has filed a response.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration at this time of Salas’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 no opportunity existed to develop
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-50363

Document: 00511515345

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/21/2011

No. 10-50363
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 Salas’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