U.S. v. GOMEZ-ROCHA, 18-40125 (2018)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: infco20181220215
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2018
Summary: PER CURIAM . * The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gomez-Rocha 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). Gomez-Rocha has moved for leave to file an out of time response. We grant Gomez-Rocha's motion and have considered his response. Gomez-Rocha's request for appointment of a new appellate attorney is untimely and is denied. See United States v. W
Summary: PER CURIAM . * The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gomez-Rocha 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). Gomez-Rocha has moved for leave to file an out of time response. We grant Gomez-Rocha's motion and have considered his response. Gomez-Rocha's request for appointment of a new appellate attorney is untimely and is denied. See United States v. Wa..
More
PER CURIAM.*
The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gomez-Rocha 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). Gomez-Rocha has moved for leave to file an out of time response. We grant Gomez-Rocha's motion and have considered his response. Gomez-Rocha's request for appointment of a new appellate attorney is untimely and is denied. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gomez-Rocha's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; 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). After reviewing counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gomez-Rocha's response, we concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
In accordance with the foregoing, Gomez-Rocha's motion for leave to file an out of time response is GRANTED, Gomez-Rocha's motion for the appointment of new appellate counsel DENIED, counsel's 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.
FootNotes
* 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.
Source: Leagle
