USA v. Santos Salina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50013 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JLD, Judge: ECP, Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 01/10/2017 for Appellant Santos Salinas; denying as untimely motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Santos Salinas [8283005-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Alexander Lee Calhoun [8264391-2] [16-50013]

Case: 16-50013

Document: 00513804099

Page: 1

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50013
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
December 20, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

v.
SANTOS SALINAS, also known as Tito, also known as Santos Salinas, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CR-250-6
Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Santos Salinas 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).
Salinas has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Salinas’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel; we therefore decline to consider them without prejudice to collateral

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50013

Document: 00513804099

Page: 2

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

No. 16-50013
review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). The
motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as untimely. See
United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Salinas’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