Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique PLANCARTE-ESTRADA, also known as Kike, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-12
Citations: 596 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 13-10627
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique PLANCARTE-ESTRADA, also known as Kike, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 596
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique PLANCARTE-ESTRADA, also known as Kike, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10627
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 12, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Enrique Planearte-Estrada, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Philip J. Lynch, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Enrique Planearte-Estrada 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). Planearte-Estra-da has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Plancarte-Estrada'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.), 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 Plancarte-Estra-da'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.