     Case: 16-40329      Document: 00513765362         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/18/2016




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

                                    No. 16-40329
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                        November 18, 2016
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICHARD MIGUEL SANTO-HERRERA, also known as Ramon Terrero, also
known as Richard Miguel Santos-Herrera,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:15-CR-1404-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Richard Miguel
Santo-Herrera 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). Santo-Herrera has filed a response.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-40329    Document: 00513765362     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/18/2016


                                 No. 16-40329

Santo-Herrera’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline
to consider the claim 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 Santo-Herrera’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
