USA v. Pedro Espinoza, No. 15-40540 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-40540 Document: 00513384126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-40540 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 17, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. PEDRO TAVIRA ESPINOZA, also known as Churris, also known as Borrado, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12-CR-125-23 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Tavira Espinoza 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). Tavira Espinoza has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Tavira Espinoza’s claim of ineffective assistance 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-40540 Document: 00513384126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2016 No. 15-40540 of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Tavira Espinoza’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Tavira Espinoza’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. 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.