United States v. Garcia-Orrantia , 326 F. App'x 833 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 16, 2009
    No. 08-50811
    Conference Calendar                  Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    OLAYA GARCIA-ORRANTIA, also known as Sandra Garcia
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:08-CR-720-ALL
    Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The attorney appointed to represent Olaya Garcia-Orrantia has moved for
    leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
    
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). Garcia-Orrantia has filed a response in which she moves
    for the appointment of new appellate counsel and alleges ineffective assistance
    of plea counsel and appellate counsel.
    The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time
    of Garcia-Orrantia’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
    No. 08-50811
    generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised
    before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the
    merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 
    470 F.3d 1087
    , 1091 (5th
    Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because she waited
    until after an Anders brief was filed, Garcia-Orrantia’s motion for appointment
    of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. Cf. United States v. Wagner, 
    158 F.3d 901
    , 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Garcia-
    Orrantia’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,
    counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from
    further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR.
    R. 42.2.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-50811

Citation Numbers: 326 F. App'x 833

Judges: Benavides, Haynes, Per Curiam, Smith

Filed Date: 6/16/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/2/2023