Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41076/USCOURTS-ca5-15-41076-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Alvarez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40474

Cons. w/ No. 15-41076

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-96-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Alvarez has moved in these 

consolidated appeals 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). Alvarez has filed a response. 

 

* 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 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41076 Document: 00513774892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2016
No. 16-40474

Cons. w/ No. 15-41076

2

Included in Alvarez’s response is a claim that trial counsel and appellate 

counsel were ineffective for failing to argue that the district court did not have 

jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings because Congress does not have the 

power under the Constitution to create federal crimes. 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. 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). Alvarez was 

convicted pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 

and 841. The CSA was enacted pursuant to Congress’s authority under the 

Commerce Clause. See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12-22 (2005). 

Accordingly, Alvarez has not shown a nonfrivolous issue regarding whether his 

trial counsel or his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the 

district court’s jurisdiction over his criminal proceedings. See Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). 

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

reflected therein, as well as Alvarez’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Alvarez’s motion for transcripts and the appointment of new 

counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th 

Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Ramos, 390 F. App’x 425, 426 (5th Cir. 

2010).

 Case: 15-41076 Document: 00513774892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2016