United States v. Manriquez ( 2021 )

Case: 20-11019 Document: 00515884251 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. 20-11019 Lyle W. Cayce
Conference Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Gabriel Sepulveda Manriquez,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-142-3
Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Gabriel Sepulveda Manriquez
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). Sepulveda Manriquez has filed a response.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-11019 Document: 00515884251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2021
No. 20-11019
The record is insufficiently developed to permit consideration of
Sepulveda Manriquez’s arguments that he was mentally incompetent to
enter his guilty plea and appeal waiver and that he pleaded guilty only because
of defense counsel’s alleged assurance that the sentences on his two counts
of conviction would not run consecutively. See United States v. Corbett,
742 F.2d 173, 176–78 (5th Cir. 1984). Such arguments should be raised in a
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Id. at 178 n.11.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Sepulveda Manriquez’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. Sepulveda
Manriquez’s pro se motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED as
untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
2