USA v. Fidel Cardena

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-20726 Dismissed as Frivolous ] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC Mandate pull date is 07/21/2015 for Appellant Fidel Galarza Cardenas; denying motion to file supplemental briefs filed by Appellant Mr. Fidel Galarza Cardenas [7824350-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Lourdes Rodriguez [7761922-2] [13-20726]

Case: 13-20726

Document: 00513099407

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/30/2015

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

No. 13-20726
Summary Calendar

FILED
June 30, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
FIDEL GALARZA CARDENAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:12-CR-581
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Fidel Galarza Cardenas 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). Cardenas has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cardenas’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider them without

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-20726

Document: 00513099407

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/30/2015

No. 13-20726
prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Cardenas’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, 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. Cardenas’s motion to file a pro se brief is DENIED.

2