Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40758/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cesar Armijo-Mercado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40758

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CESAR ARMIJO-MERCADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-557-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Cesar ArmijoMercado 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). Armijo-Mercado has filed a response. 

Included in Armijo-Mercado’s response is a claim that counsel was 

ineffective for not arguing that Armijo-Mercado should receive a third point for 

* 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

April 1, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40758 Document: 00512988979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2015
No. 14-40758

acceptance of responsibility. We generally do not review claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 

841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). However, this is one of those 

“rare cases in which the record” permits us to “fairly evaluate the merits of the 

claim.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The FPD 

requested a third point for acceptance of responsibility in his objections to the 

presentence report, and Armijo-Mercado received that point at sentencing. 

Accordingly, Armijo-Mercado has not shown counsel was ineffective with 

respect to the points assigned for acceptance of responsibility. See Strickland 

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). To the extent that Armijo-Mercado’s 

response raises other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is 

not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of those claims; 

we therefore decline to consider those claims without prejudice to collateral 

review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841. 

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

reflected therein, as well as Armijo-Mercado’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.

2

Case: 14-40758 Document: 00512988979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2015