     Case: 18-11470      Document: 00515209394         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/21/2019




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 18-11470                        November 21, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GILBERT MARTINEZ, also known as Chuco,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:18-CR-22-1


Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Gilbert Martinez has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Martinez has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Martinez’s claims of ineffective assistance of




       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-11470    Document: 00515209394     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/21/2019


                                 No. 18-11470

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Martinez’s responses. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Martinez’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.
See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).




                                       2
