Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus PARAMO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-01
Citations: 694 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 16-11383 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus PARAMO, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus PARAMO, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11383 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 1, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jesus Paramo, Pro Se
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Paramo 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). Paramo has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Paramo's response. We agree with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. We gener ally do not entertain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that have not previously been presented to the district court and decline to do so here without prejudice to Paramo's ability to bring such claims on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
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. Paramo's motion to reject counsel's brief and to appoint new counsel is DENIED. Cf. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.