USA v. Agustin Aguilar-Torres, No. 15-50044 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50044 Document: 00513284261 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50044 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 24, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. AGUSTIN AGUILAR-TORRES, also known as Agustin Torres, also known as Augustine Aguilar, also known as Agustine Torres Aguilar, also known as “Wacko,” also known as Agustin Torres-Aguilar, also known as Agustin Tino Aguilar, also known as Agustin Aguilar, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-478-5 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Agustin Aguilar-Torres 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). Aguilar-Torres has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50044 Document: 00513284261 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/24/2015 No. 15-50044 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Aguilar-Torres’s claim of ineffective assistance 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.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). Aguilar-Torres’s appellate waiver is enforceable because it was knowingly and voluntarily made. See United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). Aguilar-Torres’s claim about the sufficiency of the factual basis of his plea survives the appellate waiver. See United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 474 (5th Cir. 2008). Nonetheless, because he signed the plea agreement, which contained the factual basis, and stated at rearraignment that he had no objection to it, he cannot present a nonfrivolous appellate claim. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity. The subsequent presentation of conclusory allegations unsupported by specifics is subject to summary dismissal, as are contentions that in the face of the record are wholly incredible.”); United States v. Abreo, 30 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1994) (noting that executed, unambiguous plea agreements are afforded substantial evidentiary weight). To the extent Aguilar-Torres asks to appeal pro se, his request is DENIED as untimely because it was lodged after the Anders brief was filed. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902–03 (5th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Aguilar-Torres’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
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.
