U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2021

United States v. Avila Hernandez

United States v. Avila Hernandez
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 9, 2021

United States v. Avila Hernandez

Opinion

Case: 20-61032 Document: 00516087589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2021

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

No. 20-61032 FILED November 9, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Claudia Elizabeth Avila Hernandez, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:17-CR-54-2

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Claudia Elizabeth Avila Hernandez 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). Avila Hernandez has filed responses.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-61032 Document: 00516087589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2021

No. 20-61032

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Avila Hernandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims 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 Avila Hernandez’s responses. 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. Avila Hernandez’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.