Case ID: f-appx_603/html/0327-02.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. Jesus GARCIA-ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-40431
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 14, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jesus Garcia-Acosta, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Michael Lance Herman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Garcia-Acosta 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). Garcia-Acosta has filed a response and a supplemental response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia-Acosta’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 record reflected therein, as well as Garcia-Acosta’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’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       Pursuant to -5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.