Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle R. FREYTAG, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-22
Citations: 689 F. App'x 382
Docket Number: No. 15-20646
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle R. FREYTAG, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 382–384

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michelle R. FREYTAG, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-20646
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed May 22, 2017
Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michelle R. Freytag, Pro Se
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Summary Calendar
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Michelle R. Freytag has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Freytag has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Freytag'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); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
We have reviewed counsel's briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Freytag'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, Freytag's motion for appointment of new counsel, to strike the briefs, and to remand the case to the district court for resentencing is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.