USA v. Jose Gomez-Rocha, No. 18-40125 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-40125 Document: 00514770091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-40125 Conference Calendar FILED December 20, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. JOSE GOMEZ-ROCHA, Defendant - Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16-CR-93-5 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jose Gomez-Rocha 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-Rocha has moved for leave to file an out of time response. We grant Gomez-Rocha’s motion and have considered his response. Gomez-Rocha’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-40125 Document: 00514770091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2018 No. 18-40125 request for appointment of a new appellate attorney is untimely and is denied. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gomez-Rocha’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. 2014). After reviewing counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gomez-Rocha’s response, we concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. In accordance with the foregoing, Gomez-Rocha’s motion for leave to file an out of time response is GRANTED, Gomez-Rocha’s motion for the appointment of new appellate counsel DENIED, counsel’s 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.
