Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio AGUILAR-CARDENAS, also known as Nacho, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-14
Citations: 671 F. App'x 323
Docket Number: No. 16-40364 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio AGUILAR-CARDENAS, also known as Nacho, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 323–323

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio AGUILAR-CARDENAS, also known as Nacho, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40364 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 12/14/2016
Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Ignacio Aguilar-Cardenas, Pro Se
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Ignacio Aguilar-Cardenas 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). Aguilar-Cardenas has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Aguilar-Cardenas's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). This denial is without prejudice to collateral review: Aguilar-Cardenas may raise any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. See id.
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Aguilar-Cardenas'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 Cíe. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.