Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50013/USCOURTS-ca5-16-50013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Santos Salinas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50013

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SANTOS SALINAS, also known as Tito, also known as Santos Salinas, Jr.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CR-250-6

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Santos Salinas 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).

Salinas has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Salinas’s claims of ineffective assistance of 

counsel; we therefore decline to consider them without prejudice to collateral 

 

* 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

December 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50013 Document: 00513804099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2016
No. 16-50013

2

review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). The 

motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as untimely. See 

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

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

reflected therein, as well as Salinas’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.

 Case: 16-50013 Document: 00513804099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2016