USA v. Juan Saucedo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-51163 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ , Judge: JES , Judge: EBC. Mandate pull date is 09/11/2013 for Appellant Juan Saucedo; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Robert Joseph Perez, Esq. [7362483-2] [12-51163]

Case: 12-51163

Document: 00512349605

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/21/2013

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

FILED
No. 12-51163
Summary Calendar

August 21, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN SAUCEDO,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CR-782-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Juan Saucedo 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). Saucedo
has not filed a response.

The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration at this time of Saucedo’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-51163

Document: 00512349605

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/21/2013

No. 12-51163
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. 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