USA v. Joel Rios-Villanueva

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-50460 Dismissed as Frivolous Judge: JES , Judge: PRO , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 11/09/2012 for Appellant Joel Rios-Villanueva; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Joel Rios-Villanueva [6985411-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Ricardo Enrique Calderon, Esq. [6963898-2] [11-50460]

Case: 11-50460

Document: 00512026887

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/19/2012

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

FILED
No. 11-50460
Summary Calendar

October 19, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOEL RIOS-VILLANUEVA,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 2:09-CR-485-2

Before SMITH, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Joel Rios-Villanueva has moved for
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-50460

Document: 00512026887

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/19/2012

No. 11-50460
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).
Rios-Villanueva has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new
counsel.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, and Rios-Villanueva’s response. The record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration of the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
which generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not
been raised before 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 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. The motion for the appointment
of new counsel is DENIED.

2