Case: 14-40451      Document: 00512973051         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/18/2015




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                                    No. 14-40451
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                          March 18, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELIUD REYMUNDO PEQUENO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:10-CR-1066-2


Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Eliud Reymundo Pequeno 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).    Pequeno has filed a response.           The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Pequeno’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40451     Document: 00512973051      Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/18/2015


                                  No. 14-40451

without prejudice to collateral 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 Pequeno’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