United States v. Gonzales-Hernandez

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50487
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EPIFANIO GONZALES-HERNANDEZ,
also known as Epifanio
Hernandez Gonzalez,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-99-CR-214-1-JN
--------------------
August 15, 2001
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Court-appointed counsel for Epifanio Gonzales-Hernandez has
filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzales-Hernandez has received
a copy of counsel’s brief. He requests permission to proceed
pro se, and he has filed a brief.
Gonzales-Hernandez’s request for permission to proceed pro
se, filed after counsel filed the Anders brief, is DENIED as

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 00-50487
-2-
untimely to invoke the statutory right of self-representation.
United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
In his brief, Gonzales-Hernandez argues that the district
court erred in refusing to grant him a reduction for acceptance
of responsibility. Gonzales-Hernandez knowingly and voluntarily
waived his right to appeal his sentence except in certain limited
circumstances not applicable here. See United States v.
Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). This argument is
therefore foreclosed.
Gonzales-Hernandez also argues that he did not waive his
right to effective assistance of counsel and that his trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the managerial
role adjustment. The record has not been adequately developed
for us to consider this argument on direct appeal. See United
States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1998).
Our independent review of the brief, the record, and
Gonzales-Hernandez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue in
this direct 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.

-- 2 of 2 --