Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles C. LONDON, also known as "C", Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 690 F. App'x 165
Docket Number: No. 16-31022 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles C. LONDON, also known as “C”, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles C. LONDON, also known as “C”, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-31022 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 30, 2017
Mary Patricia Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Charles C. London, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Charles C. London 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). London has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of London'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 London'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 Cíe. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.