Case: 16-10702      Document: 00513977508         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/03/2017




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

                                    No. 16-10702                                 FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                            May 3, 2017
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIGUEL MENDOZA-DIAZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:15-CR-255-7


Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Mendoza-Diaz 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). Mendoza-Diaz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mendoza-Diaz’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10702     Document: 00513977508    Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/03/2017


                                 No. 16-10702

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 Mendoza-Diaz’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