USA vs. Monsevaiz, (5th Cir. 2000)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41451 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNNY JAMES MONSEVAIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-97-CR-211-1 No. 99-41452 (Summary Calendar) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOHNNY JAMES MONSEVAIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-97-CR-269-1 December 6, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Grant Jones, the attorney ap po int ed to represent Johnny James Monsevaiz, has moved for leave to withdraw from the appea l of Monsevaiz§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), being a convicted felon in possession of ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and failure to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1) and 1346(b)(1)(A)(ii). Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Jones has filed a brief stating that he finds no meritorious issues for review; Monsevaiz was noti fied of counselÂ’s motion and brief and filed a response. Both counselÂ’s brief and our own independent review of the record show that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. MonsevaizÂ’s contention that a Government witness was coerced to commit perj ury was not presented to the district court. An issue raised for the first time on appeal is not amenable to consideration by this court. S ee Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 982 (2000). Even if we were to consider the recantation, there is still adequate physical and c ircumst ant ial evidence to support the juryÂ’s guilty verdict on all charges. S ee United States v. Walker , 148 F.3d 518, 523 (5th Cir. 1998). Consequently, counselÂ’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4