United States v. Gonzales ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10948 Document: 00516910431 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10948
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ September 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Damien Dre Gonzales,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:21-CR-76-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The attorney appointed to represent Damien Dre Gonzales 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). Gonzales has filed a response. He also filed two supplemental
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10948 Document: 00516910431 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2023
No. 22-10948
responses, which are each construed a motion for leave to file a supplemental
response and are GRANTED.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation—on direct appeal—of Gonzales’s claims of coercion, unkept
promises, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Such claims are more
appropriately raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. Accordingly, we
decline to consider these claims without prejudice to collateral review. See
United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v.
Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 175-78 & n.11 (5th Cir. 1984).
Otherwise, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions
of the record reflected therein, as well as Gonzales’s responses. We concur
with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. 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.
2