Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Theron JONES, also known as T.J. Jones, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-08
Citations: 615 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 14-30849
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Theron JONES, also known as T.J. Jones, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Theron JONES, also known as T.J. Jones, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30849
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 8, 2015.
Elizabeth A. Privitera, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Pamela Ries Metzger, Esq., Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Theron Jones, Yazoo City, MS, pro se.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Theron Jones 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). Jones has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Jones's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to such right as Jones may have 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 Jones'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.