     Case: 15-41049      Document: 00513380496         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/15/2016




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                                    No. 15-41049
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                         February 15, 2016
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO OLIVER-LOZANO, Also Known as Alejandro Oliver,

                                                 Defendant–Appellant.




                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:15-CR-6-1




Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alejandro Oliver-



       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-41049    Document: 00513380496     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/15/2016


                                 No. 15-41049

Lozano 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). Oliver-Lozano has filed a response.

      The record is not sufficiently developed for a fair evaluation of Oliver-
Lozano’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as to which we express no
view. We 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 examined counsel’s brief, relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, and Oliver-Lozano’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
