     Case: 18-10783      Document: 00515198135         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/13/2019




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 18-10783                        November 13, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID VALDEZ, JR.,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:17-CR-463-1


Before STEWART, DENNIS, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent David Valdez, Jr.,
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). Valdez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Valdez’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-10783      Document: 00515198135   Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/13/2019


                                 No. 18-10783

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 Valdez’s response.    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.




                                       2
