Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago SANDOVAL, also known as Ramiro Sandoval, also known as Ramiro Amador Sandoval, also known as Sandoval Ramiro, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 689 F. App'x 818
Docket Number: No. 16-10523 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago SANDOVAL, also known as Ramiro Sandoval, also known as Ramiro Amador Sandoval, also known as Sandoval Ramiro, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 818–818

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Santiago SANDOVAL, also known as Ramiro Sandoval, also known as Ramiro Amador Sandoval, also known as Sandoval Ramiro, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10523 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 26, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Santiago Sandoval, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Santiago Sandoval 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). Sandoval has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Sandoval'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. 2014). Sandoval's request for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sandoval'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.