Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Lee PIMIENTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-04
Citations: 694 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 16-41685 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Lee PIMIENTA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 694
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricky Lee PIMIENTA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-41685 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed August 4, 2017
Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern Dis- ■ trict of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Ricky Lee Pimienta, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricky Lee Pimienta 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). Pimienta has filed a response and a motion for appointment of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Pimienta'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 Pimienta'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, Pimienta's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.