USA v. Rodolfo Huerta-Mireles, No. 12-41380 (5th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-41380 Document: 00512278585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-41380 Conference Calendar June 18, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RODOLFO HUERTA-MIRELES, true name Rodolfo Mireles Huerta, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-635-1 Before JONES, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rodolfo HuertaMireles (Mireles) 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). Mireles has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Mireles s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-41380 Document: 00512278585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2013 No. 12-41380 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 Mireles 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.