Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco PRADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-09
Citations: 144 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 04-40247
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco PRADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 395–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco PRADO-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-40247.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 9, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Francisco Prado-Martinez, Federal Correctional Institution Seagoville, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Court-appointed counsel for Francisco Prado-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Prado-Martinez responds that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because of the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
We decline to address the ineffective assistance claims raised by Prado-Martinez in this proceeding. See United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir.1998). Our decision is without prejudice to Prado-Martinez's right to assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003); see also United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994).
ANDERS MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.