USA v. Marcus Pizana, No. 18-40471 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-40471 Document: 00514906737 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-40471 Conference Calendar FILED April 8, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MARCUS PIZANA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CR-1-1 Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Pizana 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). Pizana has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Pizana’s claims of ineffective assistance 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-40471 Document: 00514906737 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2019 No. 18-40471 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 Pizana’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Pizana’s pro se motion for leave to supplement counsel’s Anders brief, which is construed as a motion to file an untimely pro se response, is GRANTED. Pizana’s pro se motions to strike counsel’s Anders brief, for leave to proceed pro se, and for an extension of time to file a pro se brief are DENIED. 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.