     Case: 18-10269      Document: 00515235191         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/13/2019




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

                                                                           FILED
                                                                      December 13, 2019
                                    No. 18-10269
                                 Conference Calendar                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCELINO RUIZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:17-CR-190-1


Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Marcelino Ruiz has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ruiz
has filed several responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Ruiz’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-10269    Document: 00515235191    Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/13/2019


                                No. 18-10269

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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Ruiz’s responses.    We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review,
even if we do not consider the appeal waiver. 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. Ruiz’s motion
for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.




                                      2
