     Case: 17-41229      Document: 00514546561         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/09/2018




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 17-41229                             July 9, 2018
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUILLERMO VALENTE ZUNIGA-GARCIA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 2:17-CR-352-1


Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Guillermo Valente
Zuniga-Garcia 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). Zuniga-Garcia has filed a response and
a motion for appointment of new counsel.               The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Zuniga-Garcia’s claims 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-41229     Document: 00514546561    Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/09/2018


                                 No. 17-41229

ineffective assistance of 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 Zuniga-Garcia’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, Zuniga-Garcia’s motion
for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
