USA v. Ismael Remigio-Marcelino, No. 15-40077 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40077 Document: 00513308448 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40077 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 15, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. ISMAEL REMIGIO-MARCELINO, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14-CR-1372-1 Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ismael RemigioMarcelino 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). Remigio-Marcelino has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Remigio-Marcelino’s response. To the extent Remigio- 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40077 Document: 00513308448 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2015 No. 15-40077 Marcelino asserts ineffectiveness of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any such claims; we therefore decline to consider those claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). To the extent Remigio-Marcelino asks to appeal pro se, his request is DENIED. 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

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.