Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnoldo MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-22
Citations: 697 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 16-40281 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnoldo MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnoldo MORALES, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40281 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 22, 2017
Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Amoldo Morales, Pro Se
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Ar-noldo Morales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Morales has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Morales's ineffective assistance of counsel claims; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Morales's responses. 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. Morales's motion to file an out-of-time response is GRANTED. His motions to relieve counsel and for the appointment of new counsel are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.