USA v. Gregorio Galindo-Romero, No. 11-40224 (5th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-40224 Document: 00511706999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/27/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-40224 Summary Calendar December 27, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GREGORIO GALINDO-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-263-2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Gregorio Galindo-Romero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California1 and United States v. Flores.2 Galindo-Romero has filed two responses. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Case: 11-40224 Document: 00511706999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/27/2011 No. 11-40224 time of Galindo-Romero s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations. 3 We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Galindo-Romero s responses. 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.4 3 United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Pierce, 959 F.2d 1297, 1301 (5th Cir. 1992)). 4 See 5TH CIR. 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.