U.S. v. CASAS-AMADOR, 16-10514. Summary Calendar. (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: infco20170209127
Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 09, 2017
Summary: PER CURIAM . * The attorney appointed to represent Beneth Casas-Amador 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). Casas-Amador has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Casas-Amador's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to
Summary: PER CURIAM . * The attorney appointed to represent Beneth Casas-Amador 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). Casas-Amador has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Casas-Amador's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to c..
More
PER CURIAM.*
The attorney appointed to represent Beneth Casas-Amador 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). Casas-Amador has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Casas-Amador'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 have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Casas-Amador's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Casas-Amador's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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.
FootNotes
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: Leagle
