Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adan SALAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-15
Citations: 603 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 14-41154
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adan SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. -
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 603
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adan SALAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41154
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 15, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Scott Qndrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Adan Salas, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. -

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adan Salas 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). Salas has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Salas's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims 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 Salas'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.