USA v. Jose Villa

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-20185 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: EHJ , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 08/06/2015 for Appellant Jose Gutierrez Villa; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Jose Gutierrez Villa [7783378-3], granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Margaret Christina Ling [7718269-2]; denying motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Jose Gutierrez Villa [7783378-4] [14-20185]

Case: 14-20185

Document: 00513118778

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/16/2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-20185
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
July 16, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOSE GUTIERREZ VILLA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-409-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Gutierrez Villa
has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel on appeal 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). Gutierrez Villa has filed responses. The
record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Gutierrez Villa’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-20185

Document: 00513118778

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/16/2015

No. 14-20185
to consider the claim without 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,
as well as Gutierrez Villa’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment
that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The motion
for leave to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, and counsel is excused from
further responsibilities in this case. Gutierrez Villa’s request to proceed pro se
is DENIED. See United States v. Polanco–Ozorto, 772 F.3d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir.
2014) (per curiam) (“[A] criminal defendant’s motion to proceed pro se on
appeal will be denied if it is filed after the defendant’s counsel has filed an
Anders brief, as such a request is invoked too late.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)). The APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2