Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40077/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ismael Remigio-Marcelino
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40077

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISMAEL REMIGIO-MARCELINO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1372-1

Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ismael RemigioMarcelino has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Remigio-Marcelino has filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein, as well as Remigio-Marcelino’s response. To the extent Remigio-

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40077 Document: 00513308448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015
No. 15-40077

2

Marcelino asserts ineffectiveness of counsel, the record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any such claims; we therefore 

decline to consider those claims without prejudice to collateral review. See

United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123

(2014). To the extent Remigio-Marcelino asks to appeal pro se, his request is 

DENIED. 

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.

 Case: 15-40077 Document: 00513308448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015