Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Delia DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-03
Citations: 678 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 15-20771 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Delia DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Delia DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-20771 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 3, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Delia Diaz, Pro Se
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Delia Diaz 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). Diaz has filed a response, which asserts that her counsel failed to file "necessary papers" so that her forfeited property would go to satisfy her restitution obligations. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Diaz'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. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Diaz's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.