Case: 15-10134 Document: 00513198174 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-10134
Fifth Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar September 17, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN CENICEROS-GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CR-2
Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ceniceros-
Gonzalez 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). Ceniceros-Gonzalez has filed a response.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-10134 Document: 00513198174 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2015
No. 15-10134
See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
123 (2014). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address Ceniceros-
Gonzalez’s contentions that his guilty plea was induced by force, threats, or an
unfulfilled promise that does not appear in the record. See United States v.
Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore decline to consider
these claims without prejudice to Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s right, if any, to seek
collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n.11.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s response. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. Accordingly, Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s request for appointment
of new counsel is DENIED, 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.
2