Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hildegardo Rodriguez VIRON, also known as Javier, also known as Rufino, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 604 F. App'x 359
Docket Number: No. 13-41222
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hildegardo Rodriguez VIRON, also known as Javier, also known as Rufino, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 359–360

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hildegardo Rodriguez VIRON, also known as Javier, also known as Rufino, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-41222
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Patrick Whalen, Whalen Law Office, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Hildegardo Rodriguez Virón, Philips-burg, PA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, USDC No. 4:10-CR-169-1S.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Hildegardo Rodriguez Virón 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). Rodriguez Virón has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rodriguez Viron'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 Rodriguez Vi-ron'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.