Court Opinion

ID: 4187240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-20 03:01:37.790668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:22.775651
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-11251      Document: 00514080742         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/19/2017

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

                                    No. 16-11251                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                            July 19, 2017
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN GARCIA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:09-CR-276-3

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent John Garcia 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).
Garcia has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Garcia’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11251    Document: 00514080742     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/19/2017

                                 No. 16-11251

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 Garcia’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. Garcia’s motion to substitute counsel is DENIED. See United
States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

                                       2