Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Keith Nicholas OSER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 707 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 17-40176 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Keith Nicholas OSER, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Keith Nicholas OSER, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40176 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed December 20, 2017
Marisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Keith Nicholas Oser, Pro Se
Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Keith Nicholas Oser 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). Oser has filed a response.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Oser's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address Oser's contention that his guilty plea was coerced. See United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n.11.
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Oser'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited' circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.