Case ID: f-appx_685/html/0365-02.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 Ramiro RAMOS-MORENO, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 16-40853 Conference Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Filed April 18, 2017
    
      Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jose Ramiro Ramos-Moreno, Pro Se
    Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Ramiro Ramos-Moreno 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). Ramos-Moreno has filed a response with an incorporated motion asking this court to vacate his sentence and remand the case to the district court for resentencing based on a claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ramos-Moreno’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. 2014).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.