USA v. Mario Barajas-Barajas, No. 14-40399 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-40399 Document: 00512988063 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-40399 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 31, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. MARIO BARAJAS-BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13-CR-1018-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario BarajasBarajas (Barajas) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011), and United States v. Moreno-Torres, 768 F.3d 439, 441 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014). Barajas has filed two responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Barajas’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-40399 Document: 00512988063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2015 No. 14-40399 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore deny those 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, as well as Barajas’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The motion for leave to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities. Barajas’s motions to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for resentencing are DENIED, 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.