Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar LOYA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 606 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 14-40045
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar LOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Omar LOYA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-40045
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 2015.
Randall Al Blake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Omar Loya, Inez, KY, pro se.
Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Omar Loya 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). Loya has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Loya'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.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 185 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 Loya'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 Cm. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.