United States v. Roque Saenz-Quintela

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States v. Roque Saenz-Quintela, 471 F. App'x 277 (5th Cir. 2012)

United States v. Roque Saenz-Quintela

Opinion

Case: 11-50607 Document: 00511825073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED April 17, 2012 No. 11-50607 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROQUE SAENZ-QUINTELA, also known as Roque Saenz-Quintanilla,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-353-3

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Roque Saenz-Quintela 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). Saenz-Quintela has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Saenz-Quintela’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 11-50607 Document: 00511825073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012

No. 11-50607

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell,

470 F.3d 1087, 1091

(5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Saenz-Quintela’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Saenz Quintela’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished