Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pathom Madane DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 604 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 14-10912
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pathom Madane DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 358–358

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pathom Madane DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10912
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 16, 2015.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public ■ Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, Peter Michael Fleury, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.