USA v. Miguel Zamora, No. 10-20301 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 10-20301 Document: 00512401644 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 10-20301 Summary Calendar October 9, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MIGUEL ZAMORA, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-400-2 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Zamora 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). Zamora has filed a response. To the extent that Zamora raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of his claims at this time; such claims generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] ha[ve] not been raised before the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 10-20301 Document: 00512401644 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2013 No. 10-20301 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 Zamora s response. We concur with counsel s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 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.