USA v. Ivan Gonzalez
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-40649 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EHJ , Judge: PRO , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 07/09/2013 for Appellant Ivan Mauricio Gonzalez; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Molly Estelle Odom, Esq. [7209121-2] [12-40649]
Date Filed: 06/18/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
June 18, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
IVAN MAURICIO GONZALEZ,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:09-CR-380-3
Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ivan Mauricio
Gonzalez 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).
Gonzalez has filed a response.
The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Gonzalez’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
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
Date Filed: 06/18/2013
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
Gonzalez’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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?