Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0262-01.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. Henry Antonio ZUNIGA-RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 15-50374, 15-50375
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 1, 2015.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Laura G. Greenberg, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Henjy Antonio Zuniga-Riv-era 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). Zu-niga-Rivera has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of ZunigaRivera’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 records reflected therein, as well as Zuniga-Rivera’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Zuniga-Rivera’s motion to remove counsel and to appoint 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.