Case ID: f-appx_596/html/0343-01.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. Juan ORDUNA-ARMENDARES, also known as Juan Manuel Orduna-Al-mendarez, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-40899
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 12, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Cedar Park, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Juan Manuel Orduna-Armendares, Post, TX, pro se.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Orduna-Armendares 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). Orduna-Armen-dares has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Orduna-Armen-dares’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.), 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 Orduna-Armen-dares’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Orduna-Armendares’s request for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.