USA v. Cecilio Cardenas, No. 12-41283 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-41283 Document: 00512347244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-41283 Conference Calendar August 20, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. CECILIO LUVIANO CARDENAS, also known as Alfredo Luviano Mendoza, also known as Felipe DeJesus Arias Toribia, also known as Reyne, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-216-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Cecilio Luviano Cardenas 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). Luviano Cardenas has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Luviano Cardenas s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-41283 Document: 00512347244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2013 No. 12-41283 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 Luviano Cardenas 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