Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kamardeen OGUNLEYE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-07
Citations: 618 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 14-11245
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kamardeen OGUNLEYE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 618
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kamardeen OGUNLEYE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-11245
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 7, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Labi Akere, Attorney Akere & Akere, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kamardeen Ogunleye, Big Spring, TX pro se.
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Ka-mardeen Ogunleye 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). Ogunleye has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ogunleye's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; 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).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ogunleye'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, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. Ogunleye's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). The APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.