USA v. Francisco Turrubiates-Fortuna, No. 17-20479 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-20479 Document: 00514401245 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-20479 Summary Calendar FILED March 26, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. FRANCISCO TURRUBIATES-FORTUNA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-177-1 Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco Turrubiates-Fortuna 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). Turrubiates-Fortuna has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Turrubiates-Fortuna’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-20479 Document: 00514401245 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2018 No. 17-20479 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 Turrubiates-Fortuna’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. Turrubiates-Fortuna’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 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.