Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian Daniel ARMENDARIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-17
Citations: 636 F. App'x 621
Docket Number: No. 15-50279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian Daniel ARMENDARIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 636
Pages: 621–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrian Daniel ARMENDARIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-50279
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2016.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Lee Calhoun, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Adrian Daniel Armendariz 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). Armendariz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Armendariz'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).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Armendariz's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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. Armendariz's motion to substitute counsel is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.