Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicholas WOODS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-09
Citations: 714 F. App'x 439
Docket Number: No. 17-50194 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicholas WOODS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 439–439

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Nicholas WOODS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-50194 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 9, 2018
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Nicholas Woods, Pro Se
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Nicholas Woods 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). Woods has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Woods'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. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Woods's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo'lous 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.