USA v. Fernando Santana-Moreno

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-40270 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: EMG , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 03/09/2012 for Appellant Fernando Santana-Moreno; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Fernando Santana-Moreno [6856263-2] [11-40270]

Case: 11-40270

Document: 00511761649

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/17/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit

FILED
No. 11-40270
Conference Calendar

February 17, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FERNANDO SANTANA-MORENO, also known as Santiago Torresitas-Laguna,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-102-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fernando SantanaMoreno 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). Santana-Moreno has filed a response. The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Santana-Moreno’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
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-40270

Document: 00511761649

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/17/2012

No. 11-40270
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
Santana-Moreno’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 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2