Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monclavio Borjorque MARTINEZ-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-04
Citations: 144 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 03-50617
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monclavio Borjorque MARTINEZ-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Monclavio Borjorque MARTINEZ-MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-50617.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 4, 2005.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Monclavio Borjorque Martinez-Montoya, Stafford, AZ, pro se.
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant Monclavio Borjorque Martinez-Montoya has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant in this appeal and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Martinez-Montoya has filed a pro se response and argues, inter alia, that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object on the basis of the Sixth Amendment and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We decline to address Martinez^ Montoya's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, without prejudice, however, to his raising those claims in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).
Our independent review of the briefs, the record, and Martinez-Montoya's responses discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.