United States v. Hugo Espinoza-Gonzalez , 428 F. App'x 473 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 10-40709     Document: 00511510762          Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/16/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    June 16, 2011
    No. 10-40709
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    HUGO ESPINOZA-GONZALEZ, also known as Joel Albert Espinoza,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:09-CR-217-1
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo Espinoza-
    Gonzalez 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). Espinoza-Gonzalez has filed a response. The record
    is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Espinoza-
    Gonzalez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally
    “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-40709    Document: 00511510762      Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/16/2011
    No. 10-40709
    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).        We have reviewed
    counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well
    as Espinoza-Gonzalez’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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-40709

Citation Numbers: 428 F. App'x 473

Judges: Clement, Dennis, Per Curiam, Reavley

Filed Date: 6/16/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023