USA v. Arturo Chavez-Hernandez, No. 16-40084 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-40084 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 6, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ARTURO CHAVEZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Alberto Arturo GonzalezHernandez, true name Juan Zamora-Murillo, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-421-1 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo ChavezHernandez 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). Chavez-Hernandez has filed a response. 1 The record 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Chavez-Hernandez urges that Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 813 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.), reh’g en banc granted, 815 F.3d 189 (5th Cir.), vacated, No. 15-50051 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2016)(en banc) apply to his case. 1 Case: 16-40084 Document: 00513664540 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016 No. 16-40084 is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of ChavezHernandez’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 Chavez-Hernandez’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. However, Chavez-Hernandez was not sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act; nor was he sentenced under a “residual” definition of crime of violence. 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.
