Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beneth CASAS-AMADOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-09
Citations: 676 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 16-10514
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beneth CASAS-AMADOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 676
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Beneth CASAS-AMADOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10514
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 9, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Beneth Casas-Amador, Pro Se
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Beneth Casas-Amador 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). Casas-Amador has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Casas-Amador'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 Casas-Amador's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Casas-Amador's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.