Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Silva CAVAZOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 844
Docket Number: No. 15-40715 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Silva CAVAZOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 844–844

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jaime Silva CAVAZOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40715 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 08/02/2016
Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jaime Silva Cavazos, Pecos, TX, Pro Se.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Jamie Silva Cavazos 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). Cavazos has filed a short response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cavazos's unspecified 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). To the extent Cavazos requests new counsel, that request is denied. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Cavazos'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.