USA v. Santiago Sandoval

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10523 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 06/16/2017 for Appellant Santiago Sandoval; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Santiago Sandoval [8308056-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Raul Antonio Canez [8300206-2] [16-10523]

Case: 16-10523

Document: 00514009138

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/26/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-10523
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 26, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.

SANTIAGO SANDOVAL, also known as Ramiro Sandoval, also known as
Ramiro Amador Sandoval, also known as Sandoval Ramiro,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-132-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Santiago Sandoval 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).
Sandoval has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Sandoval’s claims of ineffective assistance of

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10523

Document: 00514009138

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/26/2017

No. 16-10523
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).
Sandoval’s request for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Sandoval’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