USA v. George Vasquez, No. 12-10253 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10253 Document: 00512339448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED August 13, 2013 No. 12-10253 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. GEORGE VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CR-96-32 Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent George Vasquez 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). Vasquez has requested new appointed counsel due to unspecified ineffective assistance. Insofar as Vasquez wishes to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of it at * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 12-10253 Document: 00512339448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2013 No. 12-10253 this time; 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. 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 Vasquez s response. We concur with counsel s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Vasquez s motion to relieve appointed counsel and to appoint new counsel is 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