Case ID: f-appx_578/html/0333-01.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. Homero MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10346
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 5, 2014.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Raul Antonio Canez, Attorney, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Homero Martinez, Texarkana, TX, pro se.
    
      Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Homero Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a 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).

Martinez has filed a pro se response, which includes a motion for leave to proceed pro se on appeal (or to allow him to proceed with retained counsel) and to strike counsel’s Anders brief. To the extent he seeks leave to proceed with retained counsel, a judge of this court has previously denied a similar motion to substitute retained counsel. See United States v. Martinez, No. 13-10346 (5th Cir. Mar. 26, 2014). We now DENY his motions for leave to proceed pro se and to strike counsel’s Anders brief as untimely filed. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

In his response, Martinez argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Martinez’s claim of ineffective assistance; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014), petition for cert. filed (June 4, 2014) (No. 13-10484).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as the remainder of Martinez’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 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.