Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio SUAREZ-COLIMA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-16
Citations: 609 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 14-10426
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio SUAREZ-COLIMA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 609
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sergio SUAREZ-COLIMA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10426
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 16, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Shawn Lee Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carolyn A. Hill, Esq., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Sergio Suarez-Colima, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Suarez-Colima 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). Suarez-Colima has filed a response and a supplemental response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Suarez-Colima'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.), 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 Suarez-Colima's responses. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.