United States v. Arturo Chavez-Hernandez

Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-40084 FILED
Summary Calendar September 6, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARTURO CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Alberto Arturo Gonzalez-
Hernandez, true name Juan Zamora-Murillo,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-421-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Chavez-
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). Chavez-Hernandez has filed a response. 1 The record
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
1Chavez-Hernandez urges that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and
United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 813 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 815 F.3d
189 (5th Cir.), vacated, No. 15-50051 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2016)(en banc) apply to his case.
Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 16-40084
is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Chavez-
Hernandez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to
consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v.
Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Chavez-Hernandez’s response. 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.
However, Chavez-Hernandez was not sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act; nor
was he sentenced under a “residual” definition of crime of violence.
2