United States v. Daniel Gomez

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Daniel Gomez

644 F. App'x 344

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 2016

Docket15-40714

StatusUnpublished

This text of 644 F. App'x 344 (United States v. Daniel Gomez) 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. Daniel Gomez, 644 F. App'x 344 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Frias Gomez 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). Frias Gomez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Frias Gomez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to *345 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 Frias Gomez’s response. Although counsel addresses the validity of Frias Gomez’s appeal waiver, counsel does not fully and meaningfully discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n. 3 (5th Cir.2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir.2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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. Frias Gomez’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Frias Gomez 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). Frias Gomez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Frias Gomez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to *345 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 Frias Gomez’s response. Although counsel addresses the validity of Frias Gomez’s appeal waiver, counsel does not fully and meaningfully discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n. 3 (5th Cir.2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir.2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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. Frias Gomez’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

644 F. App'x 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniel-gomez-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack