Case ID: f-appx_619/html/0396-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Denis Noel FLORES-HERNANDEZ, also known as Denis Noel Hernandez, also known as Eduardo Sandoval Agosta, also known as Javier Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-41439
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 19, 2015.
    William Richardson Tatum, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Midland, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Denise S. Benson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Denis. Noel Flores-Hemandez, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
    
      Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Denis Noel Flores-Hernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir.2011). Flores-Hemandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Flores-Hemandez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Flores-Hernandez’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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.