Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricardo TIRADO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 607 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 14-40092
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricardo TIRADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 401–402

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ricardo TIRADO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40092
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Juan F. Hernandez, Esq., Hernandez & Castillo, P.C., Laredo, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Ricardo Tirado, Safford, AZ, pro se.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Ricardo Tirado 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). Tirado has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Tira-do'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 Tirado's responses. 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. Tirado's motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.