USA v. Alex Avalo
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50053 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: PEH , Judge: ECP , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 03/07/2017 for Appellant Alex Avalos; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Russell David Hunt, Jr. [8230925-2] [16-50053]
Case: 16-50053
Document: 00513874521
Page: 1
Date Filed: 02/14/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-50053
Summary Calendar
FILED
February 14, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ALEX AVALOS, also known as Taz,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CR-266-2
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Alex Avalos 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).
Avalos has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Avalos’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50053
Document: 00513874521
Page: 2
Date Filed: 02/14/2017
No. 16-50053
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).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Avalos’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
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?