Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derrick HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-06
Citations: 667 F. App'x 463
Docket Number: No. 15-11069 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derrick HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 463–463

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derrick HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-11069 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 07/06/2016
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Derrick Harris, Pro Se
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Derrick Harris 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). Harris has filed a response in which he alleges that his counsel erroneously advised him that he would be eligible for the prison's residential drug abuse program. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Harris's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the 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 Harris'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.