Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio Susano RODRIGUEZ-TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 644 F. App'x 285
Docket Number: No. 15-40594
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio Susano RODRIGUEZ-TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 644
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Antonio Susano RODRIGUEZ-TRUJILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40594
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 21, 2016.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kimberly S. Keller, Keller Stolarczyk P.L.L.C., Boerne, TX, for Deferjdant-Ap-pellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Antonio Susano Rodriguez-Trujillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Cali fornia, 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). Rodriguez-Trujillo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rodriguez-Trujillo'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 Rodriguez-Trujillo'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under Tan limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.