Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10134/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Ceniceros-Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10134

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN CENICEROS-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-2

Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan CenicerosGonzalez 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). Ceniceros-Gonzalez has filed a response.

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair 

evaluation of Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

 

* 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

September 17, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10134 Document: 00513198174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 15-10134

2

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

123 (2014). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address CenicerosGonzalez’s contentions that his guilty plea was induced by force, threats, or an 

unfulfilled promise that does not appear in the record. See United States v. 

Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore decline to consider 

these claims without prejudice to Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s right, if any, to seek 

collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n.11.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s request for appointment 

of new counsel is 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.

 Case: 15-10134 Document: 00513198174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2015