Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Enrique RODRIGUEZ-GUAIQUIRIAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-18
Citations: 607 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 14-10740
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Enrique RODRIGUEZ-GUAIQUIRIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 437–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edgar Enrique RODRIGUEZ-GUAIQUIRIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10740
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 18, 2015.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Edgar Enrique Rodriguez-Guaiquirian 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). Rodriguez-Guaiquirian has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rodriguez-Guaiquirian'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 record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez-Guai-quirian'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.