USA v. Jesus Martinez, Jr., No. 15-50126 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50126 Document: 00513438273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50126 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 24, 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JESUS MARTINEZ, JR., also known as Luis J. Martinez, also known as Chueyto, also known as Casper Martinez-Arredando, also known as Luis Martinez-Arredando, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-553-4 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Jesus Martinez, Jr., 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). Martinez has filed a response and a motion to proceed pro se, which is denied. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-50126 Document: 00513438273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2016 No. 15-50126 Martinez’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 Martinez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed pro se is DENIED, the motion 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.