Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20659/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20659-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Luis Alfonso Flores-Cartagena
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20659

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ALFONSO FLORES-CARTAGENA, also known as Luis Alfonso Flores, 

also known as Luis Flores, also known as Luis Alfonso Flores Cartagena,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-98-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Alfonso Flores-Cartagena has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Flores-Cartagena has filed a response. 

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 

 

* 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: 13-20659 Document: 00513161508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2015
No. 13-20659

2

Flores-Cartagena’s claims of ineffective 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 Flores-Cartagena’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. Flores-Cartagena’s motion to remove 

counsel and to appoint new counsel is DENIED. 

 Case: 13-20659 Document: 00513161508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2015