United States v. Julio Osorio

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedNovember 16, 2018
Docket17-40535
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Julio Osorio (United States v. Julio Osorio) 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. Julio Osorio, (5th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

Case: 17-40535 Document: 00514726195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2018

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

FILED No. 17-40535 November 16, 2018 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO OSORIO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16-CR-946-3

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Julio Osorio has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and an amended brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Osorio has filed two responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Osorio’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-40535 Document: 00514726195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2018

No. 17-40535

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s amended brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Osorio’s responses. 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. Osorio’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

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

Related

United States v. Wagner
158 F.3d 901 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Gilbert Isgar
739 F.3d 829 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Julio Osorio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-julio-osorio-ca5-2018.