     Case: 13-51201      Document: 00512901394         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/14/2015




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

                                    No. 13-51201                              FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                   January 14, 2015
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODOLFO SEGUNDO-LOPEZ,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:12-CR-1370-1


Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Rodolfo Segundo-Lopez (Segundo)
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). Segundo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Segundo’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-51201    Document: 00512901394     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/14/2015


                                 No. 13-51201

prejudice to 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 Segundo’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
