Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emerico DE LUNA-MAGALLON, also known as Jorge Trevino-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 667 F. App'x 101
Docket Number: No. 15-41108 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emerico DE LUNA-MAGALLON, also known as Jorge Trevino-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES., CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emerico DE LUNA-MAGALLON, also known as Jorge Trevino-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-41108 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Emerico De Luna-Magallon, Beaumont, TX, Pro Se.
Before JONES., CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Emerico De Luna-Magallon 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). De Luna-Magallon has filed a response and a motion for the appointment of new counsel on appeal. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of De Luna-Magallon'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. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as De Luna-Magal-lon's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, De Luna-Magallon's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.