Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adonis Jonathan CRUZ-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-17
Citations: 670 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 16-40527 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adonis Jonathan CRUZ-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 371–371

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adonis Jonathan CRUZ-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40527 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 11/17/2016
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Adonis Jonathan Cruz-Soto, Pro Se
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adonis Jonathan Cruz-Soto 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). Cruz-Soto has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cruz-Soto'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 Cruz-Soto'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, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Cruz-Soto's motion for appointment of new 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. '47.5.4.