DocketNumber: 13-51046, 13-51048
Judges: King, Jolly, Haynes
Filed Date: 9/23/2014
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
Case: 13-51046 Document: 00512779030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-51046 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 23, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellee v. ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant – Appellant ______________________________________ Cons w/ No. 13-51048 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ISRAEL HERNANDEZ, JR., also known as Jose Federico Garcia-Gonzalez, also known as Israel Hernandez-Garcia Jr., Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:13-CR-568-1 USDC No. 5:13-CR-572-1 USDC No. 5:12-CR-899-2 Case: 13-51046 Document: 00512779030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2014 No. 13-51046 c/w No. 13-51048 Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Israel Hernandez 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). Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar,739 F.3d 829
, 841 (5th Cir. 2014), petition for cert. filed (June 4, 2014) (No. 13-10484). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez’s responses. 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. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 2