Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene PEREZ, also known as Rene Perez-Macedo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 667 F. App'x 113
Docket Number: No. 15-50828 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene PEREZ, also known as Rene Perez-Macedo, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 113–113

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rene PEREZ, also known as Rene Perez-Macedo, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-50828 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rene Perez, Three Rivers, TX, Pro Se.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Rene Perez 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). Perez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Perez's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the Perez's 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 Perez's re-sponsé. 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.