Case ID: f-appx_606/html/0146-02.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. Carlos Enrique LEIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-40288
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U,S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Carlos Enrique Leiva 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). Leiva has filed a response and moves to have his sentence vacated. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Leiva’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to Leiva’s ability to raise the claim on 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 Leiva’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Leiva’s pro se motions to vacate his-sentence and to have his case remanded for resentenc-ing are DENIED, the FPD’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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.