Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos CARMONA, also known as Kid, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-07
Citations: 654 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 15-41028
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos CARMONA, also known as Kid, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos CARMONA, also known as Kid, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-41028
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 07/07/2016
Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Carlos Carmona, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Carmona has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accor dance 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). Carmona has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Carmona's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the issue 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 Carmona's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel's 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. Carmo-na's motion for appointment of counsel is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.