United States v. Apolonio Ruiz ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-10619       Document: 00512301483         Page: 1     Date Filed: 07/09/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    July 9, 2013
    No. 12-10619
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    APOLONIO LONGINOS RUIZ, also known as Polo,
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:11-CR-96-29
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The attorney appointed to represent Apolonio Longinos Ruiz 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). Longinos Ruiz has filed a response. The record is insufficiently
    developed to allow consideration at this time of Longinos Ruiz’s claim of
    ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on
    direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 12-10619    Document: 00512301483    Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/09/2013
    No. 12-10619
    no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”
    United States v. Cantwell, 
    470 F.3d 1087
    , 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
    relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Longinos Ruiz’s
    response. 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-10619

Judges: King, Clement, Elrod

Filed Date: 7/9/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024