Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge CALDERON-CANAS, also known as Sobrino, also known as Sottero Alanzo Franko, also known as Lucas Vargas Dias, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-20
Citations: 645 F. App'x 312
Docket Number: No. 15-10417
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge CALDERON-CANAS, also known as Sobrino, also known as Sottero Alanzo Franko, also known as Lucas Vargas Dias, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 312–313

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge CALDERON-CANAS, also known as Sobrino, also known as Sottero Alanzo Franko, also known as Lucas Vargas Dias, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10417
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 20, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Christopher Michael McCaffrey, Law Offices of Christopher McCaffrey, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jorge Calderon-Canas 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). Calderon-Canas has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Calderon-Canas's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to such right to collateral review as Calderon-Canas may have. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein, as well as Calderon-Canas'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th cir. R. 47.5.4.