Case ID: f-appx_613/html/0426-01.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. Luis Alfonso FLORES-CARTAGENA, also known as Luis Alfonso Flores, also known as Luis Flores, also known as Luis Alfonso Flores Cartagena, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-20659
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 19, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Baltazar Salazar, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Luis Alfonso Flores-Cartagena, Ray-mondville, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Luis Alfonso Flores-Cartagena has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental 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). Flores-Cartagena has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Flores-Cartagena’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-Cartage-na’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. Flores-Cartagena’s motion to remove counsel and to appoint new counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.