*1 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ^[*]

The attorney appointed to represent Dennis Michael Roe, Jr., 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). Roe has filed “Objections” to his counsel’s motion. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roe’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim *2 Case: 17-10138 Document: 00514275065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2017

No. 17-10138

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 the document Roe filed. 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.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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