     Case: 18-20506      Document: 00514953661         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/13/2019




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 18-20506                            May 13, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAJESH BHATT, also known as Manoj Joshi, also known as Mike Joshi,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:16-CR-385-46


Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Rajesh Bhatt 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).
Bhatt has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Bhatt’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;




       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-20506    Document: 00514953661    Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/13/2019


                                No. 18-20506

we therefore decline to consider the claims 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 Bhatt’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
