Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugenio QUINTERO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 612 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 14-11220
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugenio QUINTERO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 612
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eugenio QUINTERO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-11220
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Jackson Herrington, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Eugenio Quintero, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.