     Case: 17-11190      Document: 00514563305         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/19/2018




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


                                    No. 17-11190
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                             July 19, 2018
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TOMMY RODRIGUEZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:15-CR-307-16


Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Tommy Rodriguez 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).
Rodriguez has filed a response and an incorporated motion to proceed pro se
on appeal. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Rodriguez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-11190    Document: 00514563305     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/19/2018


                                 No. 17-11190

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 Rodriguez’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, Rodriguez’s motion for leave to proceed pro se on appeal is
DENIED, 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
