Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0244-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julio HERNANDEZ-REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-50682.
    Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 6, 2004.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Julio Hernandez-Reyes, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Julio Hernandez-Reyes was convicted, pursuant to a plea of guilty, of attempting to illegally reenter the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Counsel appointed to represent Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hernandez has received a copy of counsel’s brief and has filed a response.

Hernandez challenges his indictment and conviction on the ground that he had not “entered” or been “found in” the United States. He further argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the facts of his case and challenge his indictment and conviction on that same ground. Hernandez also argues that counsel appointed to represent him on appeal was ineffective for failing to raise this same argument on direct appeal.

In this case, the record was sufficiently developed for us to review Hernandez’ claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Hernandez’ response discloses that there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.