Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Valentino LOZANO RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 15-41535 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Valentino LOZANO RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 727–727

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Valentino LOZANO RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-41535 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/18/2016
Heather Harris Rattan, Esq,, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jorge Valentino Lozano Ramirez, Pro Se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Valentino Lozano Ramirez 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). Lozano Ramirez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lozano Ramirez'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. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lozano Ramirez'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.