Case: 23-20058 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED March 20, 2024 No. 23-20058 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Xavier Jay Reyes, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-165-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Xavier Jay Reyes has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). With the benefit of liberal construction, Reyes’s most recent pleading in this court constitutes a motion _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-20058 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2024

No. 23-20058

to file an out-of-time response to the supplemental Anders brief, a response to the supplemental brief, and a motion for an extension of time to file an additional response. To the extent Reyes has raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his response, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claim; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Reyes’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, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Reyes’s motion to file an out-of-time response is GRANTED to the extent he asks to us to consider the arguments in his pro se letter. Reyes’s motion for an extension of time to file an additional response is DENIED.