Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Miguel SANTO-HERRERA, also known as Ramon Terrero, also known as Richard Miguel Santos-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-18
Citations: 670 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 16-40329 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Miguel SANTO-HERRERA, also known as Ramon Terrero, also known as Richard Miguel Santos-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 850–850

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Miguel SANTO-HERRERA, also known as Ramon Terrero, also known as Richard Miguel Santos-Herrera, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40329 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 11/18/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Richard Miguel Santo-Herrera, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Richard Miguel Santo-Herr-era 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). Santo-Herrera has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Santo-Herrera'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 Santo-Herrera's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.