United States v. Hinojosa

Case: 22-40221 Document: 00516722176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 21, 2023
No. 22-40221
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Daniel Morales Hinojosa,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:20-CR-786-4
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Daniel Morales Hinojosa 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). Morales Hinojosa has filed an untimely response, in which
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-40221 Document: 00516722176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2023
No. 22-40221
he asks this court to remove appointed counsel, strike counsel’s pleadings
and motions, and allow him to proceed pro se. A judge of this court
previously ordered Morales Hinojosa to notify this court clearly and
unequivocally whether he wished to proceed pro se on appeal. Morales
Hinojosa has not filed a response or otherwise complied with that order. To
the extent that Morales Hinojosa requests leave to file an out-of-time
response, his motion is GRANTED. His motions to proceed pro se,
remove appointed counsel, and strike counsel’s pleadings are DENIED.
See Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice Act
§ 5(B); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Morales Hinojosa’s response. The record
is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Morales
Hinojosa’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). We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate
review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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