Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio Cesar ZAVALA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-18
Citations: 695 F. App'x 819
Docket Number: No. 16-11736 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio Cesar ZAVALA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 819–819

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Julio Cesar ZAVALA-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11736 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 18, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Julio Cesar Zavala-Rodriguez, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Julio Cesar Zavala-Rodriguez 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). Zavala-Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Zavala-Rodriguez'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 Zavala-Rodri-guez'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.