Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Riley MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-17
Citations: 633 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 15-10401
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Riley MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Douglas Riley MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10401
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 17, 2016.
Andrew Ottaway, Ottaway Law Office, Granbury, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Douglas Riley Moore, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Douglas Riley Moore 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). Moore has filed a response, in which he moves to dismiss counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Moore'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 Moore'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. Moore's pro se motion to dismiss counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.