Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-11
Citations: 606 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 13-10574
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. .
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10574
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 11, 2015.
Suzanna Odette Etessam, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Camille M. Knight, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Alejandro Ruiz, Lisbon, OH, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. .

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.