Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Constantino ALVARADO-HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 653 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 15-41159
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Constantino ALVARADO-HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mario Constantino ALVARADO-HINOJOSA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-41159
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Mario Constantino Alvarado-Hinojosa, Springfield, MO, Pro Se.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mario Constantino Alvarado-Hinojosa 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). Alvarado-Hinojosa has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Alvarado-Hinojosa'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 Alvarado-Hino-josa'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.