Case ID: f-appx_598/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Israel GUARDADO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10320
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 19, 2015.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Monica F. Markley, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, Charles M. Bleil, Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jesus Israel Guardado, Salters, SC, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Israel Guardado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Guardado has filed responses to the original brief and to the supplemental brief. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guardado’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that this appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Although Guardado urges this court to consider whether his attorney provided effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, we conclude that the record is insufficiently developed on the pertinent issues, and we therefore decline to consider the matter. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014). Guardado may assert ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in a habe-as corpus motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.