USA v. Juan Hernandez-Gaudillo, No. 17-50478 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-50478 Document: 00514280709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-50478 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 20, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ-GAUDILLO, also known as Juan Caudillo, also known as Juan Gonzales-Hernandez, also known as Juan Trejo, Jr., Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17-CR-71-1 Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Carlos Hernandez-Gaudillo 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-Gaudillo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50478 Document: 00514280709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017 No. 17-50478 evaluation of Hernandez-Gaudillo’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); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hernandez-Gaudillo’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. 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.