USA v. Jose Villa


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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?