Court Opinion

ID: 4678122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-16 18:00:28.747047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:43.219032
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10591     Document: 00515824599         Page: 1     Date Filed: 04/16/2021

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

                                                                       FILED
                                                                   April 16, 2021
                                  No. 20-10591                    Lyle W. Cayce
                               Conference Calendar                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Gerald Sergio Cortinez,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CR-364-21

   Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Gerald Sergio Cortinez 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). Cortinez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10591     Document: 00515824599           Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/16/2021

                                    No. 20-10591

   developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cortinez’s claims of
   ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the ’s
   claims without 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 Cortinez’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.

                                         2