Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chris E. WILLIAMS, also known as Spank, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-24
Citations: 606 F. App'x 174
Docket Number: No. 14-30437
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chris E. WILLIAMS, also known as Spank, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 174–175

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chris E. WILLIAMS, also known as Spank, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30437
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 2015.
Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee. '
Richard Mark Upton, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, ELROD, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Chris E. Williams 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). Williams has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Williams'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.), 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 Williams'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 farther 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.