Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro REVILLA-GUEVARA, 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 718
Docket Number: No. 15-20643 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro REVILLA-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 718–718

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro REVILLA-GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-20643 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/18/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Houston, TX.
Alejandro Revilla-Guevara, Pro Se, Pecos, TX.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Revilla-Guevara 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Revilla-Guevara has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Revilla-Guevara'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 Revilla-Gue-vara'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, Revilla-Guevara's motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published-and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.