USA v. Ignacio Fuentes-Barriga, No. 16-41710 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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.