United States v. Cortez

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 9, 2002
Docket01-20186
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Cortez (United States v. Cortez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Cortez, (5th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20186 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

VERSUS

ANTONIO ISAURO CORTEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Criminal No. H-CR-00-650) January 8, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges * PER CURIAM:

O R D E R: Court-appointed counsel for Antonio Cortez has filed a motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel has not, however,

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

1 fulfilled the requirements of Anders. Anders established standards for an appointed attorney who seeks to withdraw from a direct criminal appeal on the ground that the appeal lacks an issue of arguable merit. After a “conscientious examination” of the case, the attorney must request permission to withdraw and must submit a “brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. The attorney must isolate “possibly important issues” and must “furnish the court with references to the record and legal authorities to aid it in its appellate function.” United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329 (5th Cir. 1976). Counsel has failed to obtain and file a copy of the transcript of Cortez’s sentencing hearing, without which this court cannot conduct a “full examination of all the proceedings.” See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of the sentencing transcript be obtained for inclusion in the record. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d)(6). IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that, within 40 days after the filing of said transcript, counsel must submit either a regular appellate brief or an adequate Anders brief with a renewed motion for leave to withdraw.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Al Lee Johnson
527 F.2d 1328 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Cortez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cortez-ca5-2002.