Case ID: f-appx_576/html/0368-01.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. Julio Cesar GUZMAN-AVILA, Also Known as Jose Lee Garza, Also Known as Julian Lee Garza, Also Known as Julio Cesar Guzman, Also Known as Julio Lee Guzman, Also Known as Eduardo Guzman, Also Known as Julio Cesar Guzman Avila, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-20626
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 28, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julio Guzman-Avila 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). Guzman-Avila has filed a motion for reconsideration, which we construe as a motion for leave to file a response to counsel’s Anders motion and brief. The motion is GRANTED.

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Guzman-Avila’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider that claim on direct 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, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Guzman-Avila’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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.