Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Claudio Marquez MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 677 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 16-50374 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Claudio Marquez MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Claudio Marquez MARTINEZ, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-50374 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 21, 2017
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Claudio Marquez Martinez, Jr., Pro Se
Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Claudio Marquez Martinez, 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). Martinez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Martinez'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 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Martinez'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is npt precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.