Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo RICO-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 653 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 15-40700
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo RICO-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 267–267

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo RICO-ESPINOZA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-40700
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.
Arturo Rico-Espinoza, Big Spring, TX, Pro Se.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Rico-Espinoza 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). Rico-Espinoza has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rico-Espinoza'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 Rico-Espinoza's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review'. Accordingly, the motion for1 leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5tS Cir. R. 42.2. Rico-Espinoza's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cíe. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.