     Case: 16-60635      Document: 00514013039         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/31/2017




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

                                    No. 16-60635
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                            May 31, 2017
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAMIRO HERNANDEZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Mississippi
                             USDC No. 1:16-CR-24-1


Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Ramiro Hernandez 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).
Hernandez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to
allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hernandez’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60635    Document: 00514013039    Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/31/2017


                                No. 16-60635

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 Hernandez’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
