USA v. Ignacio Fuentes-Barriga

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-41710 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK , Judge: PRO , Judge: SAH. Mandate issue date is 11/15/2017 for Appellant Ignacio Fuentes-Barriga; granting motion to file response out of time filed by Appellant Mr. Ignacio Fuentes-Barriga [8500281-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Kathryn Shephard [8458352-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ignacio Fuentes-Barriga [8500281-3] [16-41710]

Case: 16-41710

Document: 00514207253

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/24/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-41710
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
October 24, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
IGNACIO FUENTES-BARRIGA,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-1291-1
Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio FuentesBarriga 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). Fuentes-Barriga has filed an out-of-time response
along with a motion for leave to file this response, which we GRANT. The
record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-41710

Document: 00514207253

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/24/2017

No. 16-41710
Fuentes-Barriga’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 Fuentes-Barriga’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.

Fuentes-Barriga’s motion for the

appointment of substitute counsel, incorporated in his response, is DENIED.

2