Filed: Feb. 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10805 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OSCAR OSPINA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-26-1-G - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Ospina has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as requi
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-10805 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus OSCAR OSPINA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-26-1-G - February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Ospina has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as requir..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-10805
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSCAR OSPINA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:99-CR-26-1-G
--------------------
February 16, 2000
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar
Ospina has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ospina has not filed
a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record
discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. The record is not
developed sufficiently to reach Ospina’s ineffective assistance
claims raised in his separate, pro se notice of appeal. United
States v. Navejar,
963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992). Ospina may
raise this issue in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding. Accordingly,
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-10805
-2-
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED.