Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Orduno Favela HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-23
Citations: 627 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 15-10139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Orduno Favela HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar Orduno Favela HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10139
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 23, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Cesar Orduno Favela Hernandez, Three Rivers, TX, pro se.
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cesar Orduno Favela Hernandez (Favela) 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). Favela has filed a response. The' record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Favela'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 Favela'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 Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm.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.