Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0429-01.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. Jesse TREVINO, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-51205
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 22, 2014.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Jesse Trevino, Jr., Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Jesse Trevino, Jr., 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). Trevino has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Trevino’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to its being raised on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014), petition for cert, filed (June 4, 2014) (No. 13-10484). Trevino’s motion to withdraw a previously filed brief and to substitute a brief is construed as a motion to file a supplemental response to counsel’s Anders motion, and it is GRANTED. To the extent that Trevino requests leave to proceed pro se, the request is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.