USA v. Juan Chino-Marcial, No. 12-40682 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-40682 Document: 00512147260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-40682 Conference Calendar February 19, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN CARLOS CHINO-MARCIAL, also known as Juan Carlos Mejia, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1953-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Carlos ChinoMarcial (Chino) 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). Chino has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Chino s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-40682 Document: 00512147260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2013 No. 12-40682 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 Chino 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.