Case ID: f-appx_563/html/0317-02.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. Armando Silvestre RAMIREZ-ROJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40870
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 16, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Silvestre Ramirez-Rojas 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). Ramirez-Rojas filed an untimely document styled as a “notice of appeal” which we construe as a motion for leave to file a late response and as a response (which contained a list of untranslated concerns in Spanish and others in English). We GRANT the motion for leave. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ramirez-Rojas’s document. To the extent that Ramirez-Rojas is attempting to raise a challenge of ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to address these claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.