Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan BECERRA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-14
Citations: 690 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 16-41447 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan BECERRA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan BECERRA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-41447 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 14, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Juan Becerra, Jr., Pro Se
Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Juan Becerra, Jr., 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). Becerra has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Becerra'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 Becerra'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. Becerra's motions to relieve his attorney and withdraw his brief, to proceed pro se on appeal, and to extend the time to file a new brief are 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.