Filed: Dec. 29, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40575 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-361-1 - December 22, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender appointed to represent Carlos Mendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as re
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-40575 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARLOS MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-98-CR-361-1 - December 22, 1999 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The federal public defender appointed to represent Carlos Mendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as req..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40575
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARLOS MENDEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-98-CR-361-1
--------------------
December 22, 1999
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The federal public defender appointed to represent Carlos
Mendez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as
required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendez
has filed a response to counsel’s motion, asserting that the
district court erred when it declined to suppress marijuana
seized after an illegal stop, that his sentence was in violation
of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that his counsel was
ineffective because he failed to challenge the district court’s
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40575
-2-
application of the guidelines. Mendez also suggests that he was
not permitted to plead guilty.
The record is adequately developed for us to reject Mendez’s
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument. See United States v.
Higdon,
832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987); Strickland v.
Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 692 (1994). Our independent review of
the briefs and the record discloses no nonfrivolous appellate
issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,
counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED.