USA v. Rogelio Garcia-Uribe, No. 17-40866 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-40866 Document: 00514504210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 17-40866 Summary Calendar June 7, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROGELIO GARCIA-URIBE, also known as Vicente Zormeno-Lopez, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17-CR-452-1 Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rogelio GarciaUribe 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). Garcia-Uribe has filed a response and an incorporated motion for the appointment of new counsel on appeal. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia-Uribe’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-40866 Document: 00514504210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2018 No. 17-40866 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. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia-Uribe’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Garcia-Uribe’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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.