Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel VALENCIA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-08
Citations: 589 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 14-10036
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel VALENCIA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Uriel VALENCIA-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10036
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 8, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Suzanna Odette Etessam, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Victor Samuel Elfenbein, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Uriel Valencia-Torres 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). Valencia-Torres has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed 'to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Valencia-Torres'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.), 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 Valencia-Torres'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.