Court Opinion

ID: 4163270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-26 00:04:01.526295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:50.311072
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-11100      Document: 00513967426         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/25/2017

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fif h Circuit
                                    No. 16-11100                                    FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                              April 25, 2017
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                                    Clerk

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUILLERMO PEREZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:15-CR-55-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Guillermo Perez 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).
Perez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Perez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11100    Document: 00513967426    Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/25/2017

                                No. 16-11100

we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Perez’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