Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Leon SHILLING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 300
Docket Number: No. 15-40356
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Leon SHILLING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 300–301

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Leon SHILLING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-40356
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2015.
Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank Warren Henderson, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Defender-Eastern District, Frisco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Marvin Leon Shilling, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before JONES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marvin Leon Shilling 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). Shilling has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Shilling's claims that his guilty plea was made in reliance on unkept promises or 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.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir.1984).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Shilling'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. Shilling's incorporated motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.