Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40714/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40714-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Frias Gomez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40714

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

DANIEL FRIAS GOMEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1055

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Frias Gomez 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).

Frias Gomez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Frias Gomez’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without 

 

* 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

March 31, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40714 Document: 00513446286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2016
No. 15-40714

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir. 2014).

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

reflected therein, as well as Frias Gomez’s response. Although counsel 

addresses the validity of Frias Gomez’s appeal waiver, counsel does not fully 

and meaningfully discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not 

waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue 

adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 

358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 

789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that 

the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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. Frias Gomez’s motion for the appointment of counsel is

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

 Case: 15-40714 Document: 00513446286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2016