Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Macario FERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-04
Citations: 672 F. App'x 459
Docket Number: No. 15-41715 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Macario FERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Macario FERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-41715 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed January 4, 2017
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Macario Fernandez-Hernandez, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Macario Fernandez-Hernan dez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 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). Femandez-Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Fernandez-Hernandez's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, so we decline to consider it on the present state of the record. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief, relevant portions of the record, and Fernandez-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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.