USA v. Jose Hernandez-Canales, No. 12-10555 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10555 Document: 00512136750 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/06/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-10555 Summary Calendar February 6, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE HERNANDEZ-CANALES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 3:11-CR-276-1 Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Jose Hernandez-Canales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Califor* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 12-10555 Document: 00512136750 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/06/2013 No. 12-10555 nia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez-Canales has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration of Hernandez-Canales s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations. United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel s brief, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Hernandez-Canales 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, Hernandez-Canales s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, 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.