     Case: 19-10925      Document: 00515448326         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/10/2020




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 19-10925                            June 10, 2020
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MIRIAM CRYSTAL HERRERA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:18-CR-6-9


Before ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Miriam Crystal Herrera 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).    Herrera has filed a response.           The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Herrera’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-10925    Document: 00515448326    Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/10/2020


                                No. 19-10925

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 Herrera’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
