Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres SILVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-18
Citations: 669 F. App'x 715
Docket Number: No. 15-11224 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 715–715

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres SILVA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-11224 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 10/18/2016
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dallas, TX.
Andres Silva, Pro Se, Tulia, TX.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Andres Silva 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). Silva has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Silva'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 re-fleeted therein, as well as Silva'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. Silva's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.