USA v. Orlyn Jaime, No. 13-40289 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 17, 2013.

Download PDF
Case: 13-40289 Document: 00512473978 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-40289 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 17, 2013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ORLYN FRANCISCO S. MORALES JAIME, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-665-1 Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Orlyn Francisco S. Morales Jaime 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). Morales Jaime has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Morales Jaime s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40289 Document: 00512473978 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013 No. 13-40289 generally cannot be resolved on 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 Morales Jaime 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