Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dennis Michael ROE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-15
Citations: 706 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 17-10138 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dennis Michael ROE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 210–210

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dennis Michael ROE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-10138 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed December 15, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Dennis Michael Roe, Jr., Pro Se
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Dennis Michael Roe, Jr,, 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). Roe has filed "Objections" to his counsel's motion. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roe'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 the document Roe filed. 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 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R, 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under , the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.