USA v. John Garcia
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11251 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED, Judge: EBC, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 08/09/2017 for Appellant John Garcia; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Alexander Lee Calhoun [8400226-2]; denying motion to substitute counsel filed by Appellant Mr. John Garcia [8476336-3] [16-11251]
Date Filed: 07/19/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
July 19, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-276-3
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent John Garcia 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).
Garcia has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia’s claims of ineffective assistance of
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 07/19/2017
counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Garcia’s response.
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. Garcia’s motion to substitute counsel is DENIED. See United
States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
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?