Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GAZCA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 16-51173 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GAZCA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GAZCA-SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-51173 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed November 28, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jose Gazca-Solis, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public defender appointed to represent Jose Gazca-Solis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs • pursuant to 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). Gazca-Solis has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gazca-Solis'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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Gazca-Solis's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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. Gazca-Solis's motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.