Court Opinion

ID: 6323632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-16 00:01:21.871111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:40.635493
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40595     Document: 00516240256         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/15/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                           FILED
                                                                     March 15, 2022
                                  No. 21-40595
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Hugo Miguel Lopez-Erazo,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:21-CR-625-1

   Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo Miguel
   Lopez-Erazo 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). Lopez-Erazo has filed a response. The

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40595      Document: 00516240256          Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/15/2022

                                    No. 21-40595

   record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
   Lopez-Erazo’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 Lopez-Erazo’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.

                                          2