     Case: 18-40471      Document: 00514906737         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/08/2019




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

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 18-40471                              April 8, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MARCUS PIZANA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:17-CR-1-1


Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Marcus Pizana 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).
Pizana has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Pizana’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-40471    Document: 00514906737     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/08/2019


                                 No. 18-40471

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 Pizana’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. Pizana’s pro se motion for leave to supplement counsel’s
Anders brief, which is construed as a motion to file an untimely pro se response,
is GRANTED. Pizana’s pro se motions to strike counsel’s Anders brief, for
leave to proceed pro se, and for an extension of time to file a pro se brief are
DENIED.




                                       2
