     Case: 14-41466      Document: 00513354460         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/25/2016




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 14-41466                                   FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                           January 25, 2016
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SAMUEL RAMOS,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:13-CR-92


Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Samuel Ramos 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).
Ramos has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Ramos’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-41466     Document: 00513354460     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/25/2016


                                  No. 14-41466

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Ramos’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. Ramos’s pro se motion for appointment of substitute counsel
is DENIED.




                                        2
