Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sadar Dakar CADE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-29
Citations: 616 F. App'x 200
Docket Number: No. 14-20731
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sadar Dakar CADE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 200–200

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sadar Dakar CADE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-20731
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 29, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Yolanda Evette Jarmon, Esq., Law Office of Yolanda Jarmon, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Sadar D. Cade, Yazoó City, MS, pro se.
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Sa-dar Dakar Cade 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). Cade has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cade's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to Cade later raising them on 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).
We have reviewed counsel's brief, the relevant portions of the record, and Cade's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.