Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leticia BRETZ, also known as Leticia Marquez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-06
Citations: 570 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 13-50668
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leticia BRETZ, also known as Leticia Marquez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 570
Pages: 436–436

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leticia BRETZ, also known as Leticia Marquez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-50668
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 6, 2014.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Lee Calhoun, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Leticia Bretz 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). Bretz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Bretz'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 Bretz'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.