Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcos Heliodoro TORALES-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-08
Citations: 575 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 13-40295
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcos Heliodoro TORALES-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Marcos Heliodoro TORALES-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40295
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 8, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joe Alfred Flores, I, Esq., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Marcos Heliodoro Torales-Sanchez, Raymondville, TX, pro se.
Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Marcos Heliodoro Torales-Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed original and supplemental briefs 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). Torales-Sanchez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Torales-Sanchez'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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Torales-San-chez'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. Torales-Sanchez's motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.