Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dietrick Lewis JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-23
Citations: 576 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 13-41279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dietrick Lewis JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 576
Pages: 307–307

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dietrick Lewis JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-41279
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 23, 2014.
Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rafael De La Garza, II, Esq., De La Garza Law Firm P.C., Plano, TX, for De-fendanb-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Dietrick Lewis Johnson 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). Johnson has filed a response. To the extent Johnson complains of his counsels' performance, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider such a claim, 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 Johnson's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.