USA v. Ricardo Arellano-Romero, No. 14-20755 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-20755 Document: 00513379374 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-20755 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 12, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. RICARDO ARELLANO-ROMERO, also known as Adrian Chaves, also known as Ricardo Arellano Romero, also known as Ricardo Romero-Arellando, also known as Adrian Chavez, also known as Fernando Quintana, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14-CR-286-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo ArellanoRomero 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). Arellano-Romero has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of ArellanoPursuant 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-20755 Document: 00513379374 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 No. 14-20755 Romero’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Arellano-Romero’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, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. Arellano-Romero’s motions for appointment of substitute counsel or to proceed pro se and for transcripts are DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 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.
