USA v. Eduvar Rojas-Murga, No. 13-40226 (5th Cir. 2013)Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 20, 2014.
Case: 13-40226 Document: 00512473864 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 13-40226 Conference Calendar December 17, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDUVAR ROJAS-MURGA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12-CR-896-1 Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Eduvar Rojas-Murga 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). Rojas-Murga has filed a response and has moved for substitution of counsel or leave to proceed pro se. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Rojas-Murga s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40226 Document: 00512473864 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 No. 13-40226 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 Rojas-Murga 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. Rojas-Murga s motion for substitution of counsel or leave to proceed pro se is DENIED. 2