Case ID: f-appx_624/html/0254-02.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. Ismael REMIGIO-MARCELINO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-40077
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 15, 2015.
    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, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Ismael Remigio-Marcelino, USP Canaan, WAYMART, PA, pro se.
    
      Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ismael Remigio-Marcelino 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). Remigio-Marcelino has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Remigio-Marcelino’s response. To the extent Remigio-Marcelino asserts ineffectiveness of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any such claims; we therefore decline to consider those 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). To the extent Remigio-Marcelino asks to appeal pro se, his request is DENIED.

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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.