Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto VELIZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-24
Citations: 613 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 14-41228
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto VELIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 439–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto VELIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41228
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gregory Don Sherwood, Esq., Law Office of Gregory Sherwood, Austin, TX, for DefendanU-Appellant.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Veliz 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). Veliz has filed a response. To the extent Veliz may be deemed to argue that appellate counsel was ineffective, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Veliz'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.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Veliz'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Pursuant to 5th Cir R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.