USA v. Olegario Astudillo, No. 15-51105 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-51105 Document: 00513629304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-51105 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 9, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. OLEGARIO ASTUDILLO, also known as Chirro, also known as Nanche, also known as Jesus Hernandez, also known as Javier Gabriel Carachure, also known as Olegario Hernandez Astudillo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:15-CR-236-2 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Olegario Astudillo 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). Astudillo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Astudillo’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-51105 Document: 00513629304 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2016 No. 15-51105 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 Astudillo’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, Astudillo’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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.