Skip to main content

UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ GONZALEZ (2018)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dimas Juan Antonio RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Dimas Juan Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dimas Rodriguez Gonzalez, also known as Dimas Rodriguez, also known as Dimas Juan Rodriguez-Gonzalez, also known as Dimas Juan Rodriguez Rodriguez-Gonzalez, also known as Dimas Juan Rodriguez, also known as DimasJuan Antonio Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50306

Decided: August 27, 2018

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee Dimas Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Gonzalez, Pro Se

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dimas Juan Antonio Rodriguez-Gonzalez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Gonzalez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rodriguez-Gonzalez’s 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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez-Gonzalez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Copied to clipboard