Court Opinion

ID: 6330327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-13 00:00:29.869849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:01.052613
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10737     Document: 00516273151         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/08/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                             FILED
                                                                          April 8, 2022
                                  No. 21-10737                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                             Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Cristobal Velasquez-Jimenez,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:20-CR-73-1

   Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Cristobal Velasquez-Jimenez 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). Velasquez-Jimenez has filed a response.

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10737     Document: 00516273151          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/08/2022

                                   No. 21-10737

          We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
   record reflected therein, as well as Velasquez-Jimenez’s response. We
   concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous
   issue for appellate review. Moreover, because the record is not sufficiently
   developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claim that he received
   ineffective assistance of counsel, we decline to review such claims without
   prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841
   (5th Cir. 2014). 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.

                                        2