United States v. Trevino-Venegas ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10041
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VICTOR TREVINO-VENEGAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CR-42-2-C
--------------------
July 27, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Court-appointed counsel for Victor Trevino-Venegas has moved
for leave to withdraw and filed a brief as required by Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Trevino-Venegas has filed a
pro se response to the instant motion, arguing that: (1) he was
denied the right to testify on his own behalf; (2) his counsel
was ineffective in failing to conduct legal research and in
failing to make objections during key stages of the trial; (3)
the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for
possession with intent to distribute 427 pounds of marijuana; and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-10041
-2-
(4) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for
conspiracy to import marijuana. The record does not indicate
that Trevino-Venegas attempted to assert his right to testify and
the district court denied that right. It is reasonable to infer
that Trevino-Venegas is arguing that his counsel was ineffective
in advising him not to testify at his trial. The record has not
been adequately developed for us to consider Trevino-Venegas’
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal. See
United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363-64 (5th Cir. 1998),
cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1795 (1999). A review of the record
indicates that the record is not devoid of evidence of Trevino-
Venegas’ guilt of possession of 100 or more kilograms of
marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiracy to import
marijuana, and illegal reentry into the United States after
deportation. See United States v. Laury, 49 F.3d 145, 151 (5th
Cir. 1995). Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Trevino-
Venegas’ brief, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue
for appeal. 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.