Case ID: f-appx_537/html/0544-01.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. Mark Anthony GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-51047
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 2, 2013.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Grayson Kirk Meade, Esq., Meade Law Office, Alpine, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Mark Anthony Garcia, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Mark Anthony Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed 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). In response to the motion, Garcia requests that we strike counsel’s brief, extend the briefing period, and appoint new appellate counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the record. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue; however, we do not address counsel’s discussion of the adequacy of trial counsel’s performance as the issue was not raised in the district court and the record has not been developed for appellate review. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Garcia’s motions to strike the brief, extend the briefing period, and appoint substitute counsel are 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.