IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20307
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL FLORES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-716-2
--------------------
October 2, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Frumencio Reyes, Jr., court-appointed appellate counsel for
Daniel Flores, has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a
brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Flores has filed a response to the motion, arguing that counsel
must have rendered ineffective assistance by filing objections at
sentencing, but arguing on appeal that no nonfrivolous sentencing
issue exists. The record has not been adequately developed for
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-20307
-2-
us to consider this ineffective-assistance argument on direct
appeal. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.
1987).
Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses
no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. Flores’s motion for appointment of new counsel is
DENIED.
MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.