Court Opinion

ID: 4282307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-07 18:00:24.198332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:01.616154
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-50222      Document: 00514504076         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/07/2018

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

                                                                                  FILED
                                    No. 17-50222                               June 7, 2018
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELIAS MENDOZA, also known as Big E,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:16-CR-68-2

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elias Mendoza 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). Mendoza has filed a response and has moved to file a supplemental
response.

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-50222    Document: 00514504076     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/07/2018

                                 No. 17-50222

      The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Mendoza’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 Mendoza’s response and proposed supplemental
response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no
nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Mendoza’s motion to file
a supplemental response is GRANTED, counsel’s 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