Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0232-01.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. Fidel MENDEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Fidel Mendez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fidel Mendez-Hernandez, also known as Miguel Mendez Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-51127 Cons. w/ No. 16-51129 Summary Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed May 2, 2017
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Fidel Mendez-Hernandez, Pro Se
    Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidel Mendez-Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Calif ornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mendez-Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mendez-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).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mendez-Hernandez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.