USA v. Armando Ramirez-Roja

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-40870 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: ECP , Judge: JWE , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 05/07/2014 for Appellant Armando Silvestre Ramirez-Rojas; granting motion to file response out of time filed by Appellant Mr. Armando Silvestre Ramirez-Rojas [7613217-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. H. Michael Sokolow [7511698-2] [13-40870]

Case: 13-40870

Document: 00512599159

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/16/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-40870
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 16, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
ARMANDO SILVESTRE RAMIREZ-ROJAS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:12-CR-1562-1
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Silvestre
Ramirez-Rojas 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).

Ramirez-Rojas filed an untimely

document styled as a “notice of appeal” which we construe as a motion for leave
to file a late response and as a response (which contained a list of untranslated

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-40870

Document: 00512599159

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/16/2014

No. 13-40870
concerns in Spanish and others in English). We GRANT the motion for leave.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Ramirez-Rojas’s document. To the extent that
Ramirez-Rojas is attempting to raise a challenge of ineffective assistance of
counsel, we conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to address
these claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087,
1091 (5th Cir. 2006). 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.

2