Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe MILLAN-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-09
Citations: 667 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: No. 16-40070 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe MILLAN-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 871–871

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Felipe MILLAN-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40070 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 08/09/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Felipe Millan-Flores, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe Millan-Flores 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). Millan-Flores has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Millan-Flores's claims of ineffective 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. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Millan-Flores'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. Millan-Flores motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.