Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lenyn ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-22
Citations: 619 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 14-20367
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lenyn ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 619
Pages: 418–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lenyn ACOSTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-20367
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Riley Friesell, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Lenyn Acosta, Pecos, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Lenyn 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). Acosta has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Acosta's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to such right as Acosta may have 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 parts of the record reflected therein, as well as Acosta'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 Cie. R. 42.2. The motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.