Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10673/USCOURTS-ca5-14-10673-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heriberto Berumen Luna
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10673

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

HERIBERTO BERUMEN LUNA, also known as Beto,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-26

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Heriberto Berumen 

Luna 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). Luna has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently 

developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Luna’s claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 12, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-10673 Document: 00513077208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2015
No. 14-10673

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Luna’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. Luna’s pro se request for counsel’s removal is DENIED as 

unnecessary, and his request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED as 

untimely. Cf. United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 14-10673 Document: 00513077208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2015