Court Opinion

ID: 2677524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-06-07 05:00:30.415424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:47.414089
License: Public Domain

Case: 13-50668      Document: 00512655061         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/06/2014

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

                                    No. 13-50668                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                             June 6, 2014
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LETICIA BRETZ, also known as Leticia Marquez,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:13-CR-10-7

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Leticia Bretz 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).
Bretz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Bretz’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-50668    Document: 00512655061    Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/06/2014

                                No. 13-50668

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 Bretz’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