United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 22, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41588
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BEATRICE B. MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CR-96-ALL
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Beatrice
B. Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Martinez
did not file a response.
This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for a new
trial filed under FED. R. CRIM. P. 33. The district court denied
the motion for lack of jurisdiction because the motion was
untimely filed. The motion was a collateral attack on 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-41588
-2-
underlying conviction, and therefore the right to counsel did not
attach. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987).
Nevertheless, this court applies the principles enunciated in
Anders to determine whether counsel should be permitted to
withdraw. See Dinkins v. Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir.
1976).
The instant appeal is limited to the district court’s denial
of Martinez’s motion for a new trial. Our independent review of
counsel’s 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.