USA v. Lino Hernandez-Benitez, No. 17-40205 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-40205 Document: 00514280284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-40205 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 20, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LINO HERNANDEZ-BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16-CR-1310-1 Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lino HernandezBenitez 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). Hernandez-Benitez has filed a motion for the appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez- 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-40205 Document: 00514280284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017 No. 17-40205 Benitez’s motion. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. To the extent HernandezBenitez asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claim; we therefore decline to consider it without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Hernandez-Benitez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel 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.