Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael BASS, also known as Sleepy, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-10
Citations: 633 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 15-10701
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael BASS, also known as Sleepy, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael BASS, also known as Sleepy, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10701
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 10, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Reuss Snipes, Broden, Mickel-sen, Helms & Snipes, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Michael Bass, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.