Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0349-01.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. Jose Antonio RIVERA-PORRAS, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 17-40294 Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed October 24, 2017
    Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jose Antonio Rivera-Porras, Pro Se
    Before KING, OWEN, and' HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio Rivera-Porras 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 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera-Porras has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rivera-Por-ras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Because that is usually the case, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). We therefore decline to consider Rivera-Porras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to collateral review.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rivera-Porras’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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 5m Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.