USA v. Saul Guzman-Bonilla, No. 17-41102 (5th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-41102 Document: 00514449107 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-41102 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 27, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAUL ALFREDO GUZMAN-BONILLA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17-CR-622-1 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Saul Alfredo Guzman-Bonilla 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). Guzman-Bonilla has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Guzman-Bonilla’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-41102 Document: 00514449107 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2018 No. 17-41102 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 Guzman-Bonilla’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. Guzman-Bonilla’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED. 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.