USA v. Beneth Casas-Amador
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10514 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: TMR, Judge: PRO, Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 03/02/2017 for Appellant Beneth Casas-Amador; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Beneth Casas-Amador [8411615-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. James Patrick Whalen [8309177-2] [16-10514]
Date Filed: 02/09/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
United States Court of Appeals
February 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CR-336-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Beneth Casas-Amador 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). Casas-Amador has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Casas-Amador’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 02/09/2017
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 Casas-Amador’s response.
We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. Accordingly, Casas-Amador’s motion for the appointment of
new counsel is DENIED, 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?