Case: 16-20713      Document: 00514126812         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/22/2017




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

                                    No. 16-20713
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                          August 22, 2017
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDER CLEDYS RODRIGUEZ, also known as Shorty,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:14-CR-613-2


Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Eder Cledys Rodriguez 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). Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider such claims without


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20713    Document: 00514126812    Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/22/2017


                                No. 16-20713

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 Rodriguez’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