     Case: 16-10402      Document: 00514112171         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/11/2017




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fif h Circuit
                                    No. 16-10402                                    FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                            August 11, 2017
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                    Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO AGUILAR,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:15-CR-186-1


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Roberto Aguilar 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).
Aguilar has filed a response as well as a motion to appoint new counsel. The
record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Aguilar’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10402    Document: 00514112171     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2017


                                 No. 16-10402

consider the claim 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 Aguilar’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. Because the appeal is frivolous, Aguilar’s motion to
appoint new counsel is DENIED.




                                       2
