The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Alejandro Oliver-Lozano

15-41049·Judge: Reávley, Smith, Haynes·Attorney: William Richardson Tatum, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Aejandro Oliver-Lozano, Washington, MS, pro se., Denise S. Benson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.0 citations

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

Case: 15-41049 Document: 00513380496 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2016

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41049 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED February 15, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO OLIVER-LOZANO, Also Known as Alejandro Oliver,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-6-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Oliver-

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-41049 Document: 00513380496 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2016

No. 15-41049

Lozano 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). Oliver-Lozano has filed a response.

The record is not sufficiently developed for a fair evaluation of OliverLozano’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as to which we express no view. We 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 examined counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record reflected therein, and Oliver-Lozano’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