United States v. Ricardo De La Rosa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 27, 2019
• Docket: 17-50668
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-50668 Document: 00515013840 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/27/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-50668 FILED Conference Calendar June 27, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO VALLES DE LA ROSA, also known as Chino, also known as Come Arroz, also known as 99,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-2213-6

Before DAVIS, JONES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Valles De La Rosa 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). De La Rosa has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of De La Rosa’s claims of

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50668 Document: 00515013840 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/27/2019

No. 17-50668

ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to 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 De La Rosa’s response. De La Rosa’s appeal waiver does not bar any challenge to the adequacy of the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, which is a threshold issue for the enforceability of an appeal waiver. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, we concur with counsel’s conclusion 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.