Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio CORNEJO, also known as Pato, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 612 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 13-11363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio CORNEJO, also known as Pato, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges'.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rogelio CORNEJO, also known as Pato, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-11363
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Kull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Michael McCaffrey, Law Offices of Christopher McCaffrey, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Rogelio Cornejo, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges'.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.