Case: 19-41001      Document: 00515435133         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/01/2020




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 19-41001                             June 1, 2020
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUDY ALBERTO GONZALEZ-SANTOS,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:19-CR-1971-1


Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rudy Alberto
Gonzalez-Santos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 

(1967), and United States
v. Flores, 

(5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Santos has filed a response.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Gonzalez-Santos’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-41001    Document: 00515435133     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/01/2020


                                 No. 19-41001

decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United
States v. Isgar, 

, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Gonzalez-Santos’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