Court Opinion

ID: 9948708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 19:01:33.331769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.230848
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20481            Document: 83-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/07/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 22-20481
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  March 7, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Jorge Gonzalez,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:20-CR-453-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Gonzalez 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).

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20481         Document: 83-1        Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                   No. 22-20481

       Gonzalez has moved for leave to file an out-of-time response. The
motion is GRANTED. We have construed the motion as his response.
       In his pro se notice of appeal, Gonzalez complained that counsel had
rendered ineffective assistance in failing to file a timely notice of appeal. This
court has “previously required a district court to recharacterize as a [28
U.S.C.] § 2255 motion a request for an out-of-time appeal that in substance
brought an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” United States v. Bernal,
551 F. App’x 177, 179 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Moron-Solis, 388
F. App’x 443, 444-45 (5th Cir. 2010), and United States v. Flores, 380 F.
App’x 371, 372 (5th Cir. 2010)). 1 We hold that the district court should have
construed the notice of appeal as a § 2255 motion requesting an out-of-time
appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel. See Moron-Solis, 388 F. App’x
at 444. The § 2255 motion was timely because it was filed within the
limitation period. See id.; see also § 2255(f).
       “[T]he interests of justice require that the district court give
[Gonzalez’s] claims additional consideration.” Moron-Solis, 388 F. App’x at
444. Gonzalez should be given “appropriate notice that his motion for an
out-of-time appeal will be recharacterized as a § 2255 motion, warn[ed] that
any subsequent § 2255 motion will be subject to second or successive
restrictions, and provide[d with] an opportunity to withdraw or amend the
motion to include all of his claims.” Id.; see Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.
375, 381-83 (2003). We express no opinion as to the merits of Gonzalez’s
claims or whether he actually requested that counsel file an appeal.

       _____________________
       1
          Unpublished opinions issued in or after 1996 “are not precedent” except in
limited circumstances, 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4, but they “may be persuasive authority,”
Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).

                                         2
Case: 22-20481       Document: 83-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/07/2024

                                No. 22-20481

      Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED AS MOOT, and
counsel is relieved of further responsibilities in this appeal. The matter is
REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.

                                      3