USA v. Riley Vallejo, No. 16-40869 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-40869 Document: 00514043275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-40869 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 21, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. RILEY RENE VALLEJO, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:15-CR-735-2 Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Riley Rene Vallejo 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). Vallejo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Vallejo’s claim of ineffective assistance related to his mental health issues; we therefore decline to consider the claim without 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-40869 Document: 00514043275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2017 No. 16-40869 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 Vallejo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review; we further determine that Vallejo’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel present no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.