Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-04
Citations: 583 F. App'x 442
Docket Number: No. 13-50262
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos GUERRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50262
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 4, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William Reynolds Biggs, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Carlos Guerrero, Florence, CO, pro se.
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Carlos Guerrero 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). Guerrero has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Guerrero'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), cert. denied, No. 13-10484, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, — L.Ed.2d -, 2014 WL 2616172 (Oct. 6, 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Guerrero'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.