Court Opinion

ID: 4416066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-12 00:00:24.69651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:58.412373
License: Public Domain

Case: 18-40163      Document: 00515030904         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/11/2019

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

                                    No. 18-40163                              FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                      July 11, 2019
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL JIMENEZ, JR.,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:16-CR-5-1

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Jimenez, Jr. 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).
Jimenez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Jimenez’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-40163    Document: 00515030904     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/11/2019

                                 No. 18-40163

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 Jimenez’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