eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2020-08

United States v. Pedro Gama-Alvarez ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 20-50096        Document: 00515520897             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/10/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 20-50096                                 FILED
Conference Calendar                       August 10, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Pedro Gama-Alvarez, also known as Guero, also known as El
Lobo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:12-CR-1578-1
Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Gama-Alvarez 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
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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: 20-50096       Document: 00515520897        Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/10/2020
No. 20-50096
Cir. 2011). Gama-Alvarez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gama-Alvarez claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel or any claim that his plea was coerced; 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); United
States v. Corbett,
    742 F.2d 173
    , 176-78 & n.11 (5th Cir. 1984).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Gama-Alvarez’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. Gama-Alvarez’s
motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States
v. Wagner,
    158 F.3d 901
    , 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
2