Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Christopher SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-17
Citations: 633 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 14-10994
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Christopher SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert Christopher SOLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10994
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald Keith Hoover, Nix, Hoover & Kreck, Sherman, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Albert Christopher Solis, Butner, NC, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Albert Christopher Solis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Solis has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Solis'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.2014).
We have reviewed counsel's briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Solis's responses. 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. Solis's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47.5.4.