     Case: 14-10426      Document: 00513118251         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/16/2015




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

                                    No. 14-10426                                   FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                             July 16, 2015
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO SUAREZ-COLIMA,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:13-CR-133


Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Suarez-Colima 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). Suarez-Colima has filed a response and a supplemental response.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Suarez-Colima’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-10426     Document: 00513118251     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/16/2015


                                  No. 14-10426

decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review.        See
United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123
(2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Suarez-Colima’s responses.        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
