     Case: 18-51076      Document: 00515156928         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/14/2019




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


                                    No. 18-51076                                FILED
                                                                         October 14, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.


MAURO GONZALES, also known as Mauro Gonzalez,

                                                 Defendant–Appellant.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:18-CR-82-9


Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Mauro Gonzales 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).
Gonzales has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Gonzales’s claims of ineffective assistance of



       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-51076    Document: 00515156928     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/14/2019


                                 No. 18-51076

counsel; 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 Gonzales’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
