Hernandez-Ramos v. United States Parole Commission

Fifth Circuit

Hernandez-Ramos v. United States Parole Commission

49 F.3d 177, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7962, 1995 WL 128490

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 1995

Docket94-40933

StatusPublished

This text of 49 F.3d 177 (Hernandez-Ramos v. United States Parole Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hernandez-Ramos v. United States Parole Commission, 49 F.3d 177, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7962, 1995 WL 128490 (5th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:

Court-appointed counsel for Alfredo Hernandez-Ramos (Hernandez) has filed a brief of the sort contemplated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), averring that there are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal, and moving the Court for permission to withdraw as Hernandez’s counsel. Although An-ders was a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, this Court has utilized the Anders format in a habeas corpus case. See, Dinkins v. Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 842, 97 S.Ct. 119, 50 L.Ed.2d 112 (1972). We likewise find that it is appropriate to apply the principles enunciated in Anders to determine whether counsel should be allowed to withdraw in a petition for review of Transfer Treaty Determination of the United States Parole Commission.

Under Anders, a court-appointed attorney may withdraw if he makes a conscientious examination of the case and finds the appeal wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. To comply with An-ders, counsel must isolate “possibly important issues” and “furnish the court with references to the record and legal authorities to aid it in its appellate function.” United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329 (5th Cir.1976). After the appellant is given an opportunity to respond, the court makes a full examination of the record to determine whether the case is frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

Counsel here has fully complied with the Anders requirements. Hernandez, although given the opportunity, did not file a response. We have independently reviewed the brief and record and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, it is ordered that counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the Petition for Review of Transfer Treaty Determination is DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge:

Court-appointed counsel for Alfredo Hernandez-Ramos (Hernandez) has filed a brief of the sort contemplated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), averring that there are no nonfrivolous issues to assert on appeal, and moving the Court for permission to withdraw as Hernandez’s counsel. Although An-ders was a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, this Court has utilized the Anders format in a habeas corpus case. See, Dinkins v. Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 842, 97 S.Ct. 119, 50 L.Ed.2d 112 (1972). We likewise find that it is appropriate to apply the principles enunciated in Anders to determine whether counsel should be allowed to withdraw in a petition for review of Transfer Treaty Determination of the United States Parole Commission.

Under Anders, a court-appointed attorney may withdraw if he makes a conscientious examination of the case and finds the appeal wholly frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400. To comply with An-ders, counsel must isolate “possibly important issues” and “furnish the court with references to the record and legal authorities to aid it in its appellate function.” United States v. Johnson, 527 F.2d 1328, 1329 (5th Cir.1976). After the appellant is given an opportunity to respond, the court makes a full examination of the record to determine whether the case is frivolous. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400.

Counsel here has fully complied with the Anders requirements. Hernandez, although given the opportunity, did not file a response. We have independently reviewed the brief and record and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, it is ordered that counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the Petition for Review of Transfer Treaty Determination is DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F.3d 177, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7962, 1995 WL 128490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-ramos-v-united-states-parole-commission-ca5-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack