Court Opinion

ID: 5121052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-26 00:00:37.044085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:20.773274
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10568      Document: 00516067765         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/25/2021

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                         October 25, 2021
                                  No. 21-10568                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                                Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Robert Flores,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:20-CR-15-8

   Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Robert Flores 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).
   Flores has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10568      Document: 00516067765           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/25/2021

                                     No. 21-10568

   us to make a fair evaluation of Flores’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 Flores’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. Flores’s pro se
   motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United
   States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

                                          2