USA v. Jorge Gerardo, No. 12-20757 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-20757 Document: 00512325493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-20757 Summary Calendar July 30, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JORGE AMAYA GERARDO, also known as Jorge Gerardo Amaya, also known as Gerardo Jorge Amaya, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-117-1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Amaya Gerardo (Amaya) 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). Amaya has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Amaya s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-20757 Document: 00512325493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 No. 12-20757 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. United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Amaya 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. 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.