Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0146-01.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. Mario BARAJAS-BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-40399
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 31, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Mario Barajas-Barajas, Winton, NC, pro se. Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Barajas-Barajas (Bara-jas) 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), United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011), and United States v. Moreno-Torres, 768 F.3d 439, 441 n. 2 (5th Cir.2014). Barajas has filed two responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to maké a fair evaluation of Barajas’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore deny those claims 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, as well as Barajas’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. ■ The motion for leave to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities. Ba-rajas’s motions to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for resen-tencing are 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.