*1 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[*]

The attorney appointed to represent Shannon Buck 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). Buck has filed a response and moved for leave to file a supplemental response. That motion is GRANTED. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Buck’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we *2 Case: 16-10349 Document: 00513969675 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2017

No. 16-10349

thus decline to consider the claims 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 Buck’s response and supplemental 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 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. Buck’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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