Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel SANCHEZ-PONCE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-18
Citations: 613 F. App'x 406
Docket Number: No. 14-51069
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel SANCHEZ-PONCE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 406–406

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Victor Manuel SANCHEZ-PONCE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-51069
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 18, 2015.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alberto Manuel Ramon, esq., Trial Attorney, Law Office of Alberto M. Ramon, Eagle Pass, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.