
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fidencio Alberto CASTILLO-SAUCEDO, also known as Jose Castillo-Espinoza, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40037
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 21, 2012.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Fidencio Alberto Castillo-Saucedo, Coleman, FL, pro se.
    Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fidencio Alberto Castillo-Saucedo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Castillo-Saucedo has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Castillo-Saucedo’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Castillo-Saucedo’s response claims he deserves a sentence credit. District courts are not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3585 to compute service credit. Prisoners may seek administrative review of the computation of their credit; they may pursue judicial review of their sentence computation only after exhausting their administrative remedies. United States v. Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir.1992). There is no allegation here that he exhausted his administrative remedies regarding this claim. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Castillo-Saucedo’s motion to appoint new appellate counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     