Case: 13-41024      Document: 00513000139         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/09/2015




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

                                    No. 13-41024                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                             April 9, 2015
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ISRAEL FLORES, JR.,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:13-CR-19


Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Israel Flores, Jr. 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).
Flores has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Flores’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;
we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-41024       Document: 00513000139   Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/09/2015


                                  No. 13-41024

review. See United States v. Isgar, 

, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Flores’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