     Case: 17-10738      Document: 00514323925         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/26/2018




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                                                       United States Court of Appeals

                                    No. 17-10738
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                                                              FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                     January 26, 2018
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                     Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCOS BATZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:16-CR-284-1


Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Marcos Batz 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). Batz
has filed a response. To the extent that Batz raises a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to
make a fair evaluation of the claim; we therefore decline to consider the claim


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-10738      Document: 00514323925   Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/26/2018


                                 No. 17-10738

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 Batz’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
