Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41255/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Saucedo-Vianey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41255

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN SAUCEDO-VIANEY, also known as Juan Saucedo, also known as Juan 

Vianey-Saucedo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-113-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Saucedo-Vianey 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).

Saucedo-Vianey has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed 

to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Saucedo-Vianey’s claims of ineffective 

 

* 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

August 19, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41255 Document: 00513161576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
No. 14-41255

2

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the 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).

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

reflected therein, as well as Saucedo-Vianey’s response. We concur with 

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

appellate review. Accordingly, 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. Saucedo-Vianey’s request to 

relieve counsel and to proceed pro se is DENIED as untimely. See United 

States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

 Case: 14-41255 Document: 00513161576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015