Court Opinion

ID: 4125915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-14 19:00:57.075522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:56.486370
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-50053      Document: 00513874521         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/14/2017

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                    No. 16-50053                                     FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                            February 14, 2017
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEX AVALOS, also known as Taz,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:15-CR-266-2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Alex Avalos has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Avalos has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Avalos’s claims of ineffective assistance of

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-50053    Document: 00513874521     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/14/2017

                                 No. 16-50053

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 Avalos’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.

                                       2