United States v. Colorado-Cuero ( 2021 )

Case: 19-40126 Document: 00515883725 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 2, 2021
No. 19-40126 Lyle W. Cayce
Conference Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Esmir Colorado-Cuero,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:18-CR-63-1
Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Esmir Colorado-Cuero 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). Colorado-Cuero has filed a response and has moved for
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40126 Document: 00515883725 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2021
No. 19-40126
appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to
allow us to make a fair evaluation of Colorado-Cuero’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). Because Colorado-Cuero moved for the appointment of
counsel after the filing of counsel’s initial Anders brief, the motion is
DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03
(5th Cir. 1998) (holding that a motion to proceed pro se filed after an Anders
brief was untimely).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Colorado-Cuero’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.
2