Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando ABAD-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-17
Citations: 573 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 13-20593
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando ABAD-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 359–359

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlando ABAD-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20593
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 17, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Orlando Abad-Lopez 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). Abad-Lopez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Abad-Lopez'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 Abad-Lopez's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review because the defendant validly agreed to waive appeal. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.