Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Keith SULLINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-27
Citations: 632 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 15-10363
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Keith SULLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 215–215

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Keith SULLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10363
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’ Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Matthew Wright, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Floyd Keith Sullins 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). Sullins has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Sullins's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or threats against him; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 & n. 11 (5th Cir.1984).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sullins'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.