Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo PEREZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-18
Citations: 582 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 13-41373
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo PEREZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo PEREZ-VASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-41373
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 18, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Humberto Yzaguirre, Jr., Attorney, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Lorenzo Perez-Vasquez 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). Perez-Vasquez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Perez-Vasquez'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), petition for cert. filed (June 4, 2014) (No. 13-10484).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Perez-Vasquez's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, Perez-Vasquez's motion for remand is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.