Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-19
Citations: 693 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 16-11251 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 369–370

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11251 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed July 19, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
John Garcia, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent John Garcia 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). Garcia has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia'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 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Garcia'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, Garcia's motion to substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.