USA v. Carlos Leiva, No. 14-40289 (5th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-40289 Document: 00512871386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-40289 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 16, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. CARLOS ENRIQUE LEIVA, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:07-CR-564-1 Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Carlos Enrique Leiva 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). Leiva has filed a response and moves for the appointment of new counsel. Although Leiva’s response raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, those claims were not presented before the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-40289 Document: 00512871386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014 No. 14-40289 district court. We therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to Leiva’s ability to raise the claims on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Leiva’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Leiva’s pro se motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, the FPD’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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.