Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40084/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arturo Chavez-Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40084

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Alberto Arturo GonzalezHernandez, 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 ChavezHernandez 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.

1 Chavez-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. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 16-40084

2

is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of ChavezHernandez’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.

 Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016