USA v. Diego Hernandez, No. 17-11062 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-11062 Document: 00514474792 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-11062 Summary Calendar FILED May 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DIEGO DURAN HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant __________________________________________ Consolidated with Case No. 17-11069 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DIEGO DURON HERNANDEZ, also known as Diego Duran Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:17-CR-1-1 USDC No. 6:11-CR-36-1 Case: 17-11062 Document: 00514474792 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 No. 17-11062 Cons/w No. 17-11069 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Diego Duran Hernandez in appeal No. 17-11062 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). The same Federal Public Defender also has moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief in appeal No. 17-11069. Hernandez has filed a response in appeal No. 17-11062, in which he raises arguments as to appeal No. 17-11069. We exercise our authority to sua sponte consolidate the appeals, which implicate common facts and issues. See United States v. Rodriguez, 564 F.3d 735, 737 (5th Cir. 2009); FED. R. APP. P. 3(b)(2). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motions for leave to withdraw are GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hernandez’s motion to vacate and remand, which he filed in appeal No. 17-11062, is DENIED. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * 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.
