United States v. Armando Ramirez-Rojas

563 F. App'x 317
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 16, 2014·No. 13-40870·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Silvestre Ramirez-Rojas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Ramirez-Rojas filed an untimely document styled as a “notice of appeal” which we construe as a motion for leave to file a late response and as a response (which contained a list of untranslated concerns in Spanish and others in English). We GRANT the motion for leave. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ramirez-Rojas’s document. To the extent that Ramirez-Rojas is attempting to raise a challenge of ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to address these claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). 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, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Armando Ramirez-Rojas, 563 F. App'x 317 (5th Cir. 2014).

563 F. App'x 317 (United States v. Armando Ramirez-Rojas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Cantwell
470 F.3d 1087 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)