     Case: 17-40535      Document: 00514726195         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/16/2018




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 17-40535                        November 16, 2018
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIO OSORIO,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:16-CR-946-3


Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Julio Osorio has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief and an amended brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229
(5th Cir. 2011). Osorio has filed two responses. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Osorio’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-40535    Document: 00514726195    Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/16/2018


                                No. 17-40535

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841
(5th Cir. 2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s amended brief and the relevant portions of
the record reflected therein, as well as Osorio’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.   Osorio’s motion for the
appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner,
158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).




                                        2
