USA v. Roberto Aguilar

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10402 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 09/01/2017 for Appellant Roberto Aguilar; mooting motion to relieve attorney filed by Appellant Mr. Roberto Aguilar [8304563-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Roberto Aguilar [8304563-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. James Warren St. John, Esq. [8285260-2] [16-10402]

Case: 16-10402

Document: 00514112171

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-10402
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit

FILED
August 11, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBERTO AGUILAR,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-186-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Aguilar has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Aguilar has filed a response as well as a motion to appoint new counsel. The
record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Aguilar’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 16-10402

Document: 00514112171

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/11/2017

No. 16-10402
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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Aguilar’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Because the appeal is frivolous, Aguilar’s motion to
appoint new counsel is DENIED.

2