USA v. Elias Gomez-Guzman, No. 10-40968 (5th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-40968 Document: 00511519710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-40968 Summary Calendar June 24, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELIAS GOMEZ-GUZMAN, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:09-CR-2528-1 Before JOLLY, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elias Gomez-Guzman 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). Gomez-Guzman has filed a response. To the extent Gomez-Guzman asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of that claim at this time; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-40968 Document: 00511519710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2011 No. 10-40968 raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations. United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gomez-Guzman 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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.