*1 Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[*]

The attorney appointed to represent Saul Anchondo 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). Anchondo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate *2 Case: 16-50517 Document: 00513956365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017

No. 16-50517

review. ^[1] Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

[1] Counsel contends that a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel exists but recognizes that a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate method for raising this claim. We agree with the latter assessment and therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). 2