From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Jimenez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2015
608 F. App'x 248 (5th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-51332

06-23-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS JIMENEZ, also known as Jose Jimenez, Defendant-Appellant


Summary Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:14-CR-173
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Jimenez 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). Jimenez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Jimenez's claims of 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.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Jimenez's response. We 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.


Summaries of

United States v. Jimenez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2015
608 F. App'x 248 (5th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Jimenez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS JIMENEZ, also known…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 23, 2015

Citations

608 F. App'x 248 (5th Cir. 2015)