Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel BARRAGAN-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 605 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 14-40404
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel BARRAGAN-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 605
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel BARRAGAN-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40404
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to '5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.