USA v. Jorge De La Paz-Villegas, No. 12-10681 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10681 Document: 00512419420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-10681 Conference Calendar October 25, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JORGE DE LA PAZ-VILLEGAS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:11-CR-174-1 Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Jorge De La Paz-Villegas 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). De La Paz-Villegas has filed a response. De La Paz-Villegas s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a timely notice of appeal has already been resolved as De La Paz-Villegas was allowed to file an out of time appeal. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10681 Document: 00512419420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013 No. 12-10681 of De La Paz-Villegas s remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim[s] ha[ve] 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 De La Paz-Villegas 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.