USA v. George Vasquez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [12-10253 Dismissed as Frivolous ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JLD , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 09/03/2013 for Appellant George Vasquez; denying motion to relieve attorney filed by Appellant Mr. George Vasquez [7316811-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. George Vasquez [7316811-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Derek D. Brown [7130139-2] [12-10253]

USA v. George Vasquez
Case:

12-10253

Document: 00512339448

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/13/2013
Doc. 512339448 Att. 1

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

FILED
August 13, 2013

No. 12-10253
Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
GEORGE VASQUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-96-32

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent George Vasquez 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).
Vasquez has requested new appointed counsel due to unspecified ineffective
assistance. Insofar as Vasquez wishes to raise a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of it at
*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 12-10253

Document: 00512339448

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/13/2013

No. 12-10253
this time; 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 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 Vasquez’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. Accordingly, Vasquez’s motion to relieve appointed counsel
and to appoint new counsel is DENIED, counsel’s 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