Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Enrique LEIVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-16
Citations: 606 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: No. 14-40289
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Enrique LEIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos Enrique LEIVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40289
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 16, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Carlos Enrique Leiva, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent Carlos Enrique Leiva 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). Leiva has filed a response and moves for the appointment of new counsel. Although Leiva's response raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, those claims were not presented before the district court. We therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to Leiva's ability to raise the claims on 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 Leiva's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Leiva's pro se motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, the FPD's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.