Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chris Wendell VORHIES, also known as Lurch, also known as Chris Voerhis, also known as Chris Vorhies, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-17
Citations: 670 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 15-51193 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chris Wendell VORHIES, also known as Lurch, also known as Chris Voerhis, also known as Chris Vorhies, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before KING, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 368–368

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chris Wendell VORHIES, also known as Lurch, also known as Chris Voerhis, also known as Chris Vorhies, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-51193 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 11/17/2016
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Chris Wendell Vorhies, Pro Se
Before KING, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Chris Wendell Vorhies 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). Vorhies has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Vorhies's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore 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 Vorhies'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.