Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50044/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Agustin Aguilar-Torres
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50044

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AGUSTIN AGUILAR-TORRES, also known as Agustin Torres, also known as 

Augustine Aguilar, also known as Agustine Torres Aguilar, also known as 

“Wacko,” also known as Agustin Torres-Aguilar, also known as Agustin Tino 

Aguilar, also known as Agustin Aguilar,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-478-5

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Agustin Aguilar-Torres 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). Aguilar-Torres has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

 

* 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

November 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50044 Document: 00513284261 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2015
No. 15-50044

2

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Aguilar-Torres’s claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim

without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 

841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). Aguilar-Torres’s appellate 

waiver is enforceable because it was knowingly and voluntarily made. See 

United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Aguilar-Torres’s claim about the sufficiency of the factual basis of his 

plea survives the appellate waiver. See United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 

466, 474 (5th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, because he signed the plea agreement, 

which contained the factual basis, and stated at rearraignment that he had no 

objection to it, he cannot present a nonfrivolous appellate claim. See 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open 

court carry a strong presumption of verity. The subsequent presentation of 

conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary 

dismissal, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly 

incredible.”); United States v. Abreo, 30 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that 

executed, unambiguous plea agreements are afforded substantial evidentiary 

weight). To the extent Aguilar-Torres asks to appeal pro se, his request is 

DENIED as untimely because it was lodged after the Anders brief was filed. 

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

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

reflected therein, as well as Aguilar-Torres’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.

 Case: 15-50044 Document: 00513284261 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2015