Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kyle M. GOVINDASAMY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-20
Citations: 699 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 17-40062 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kyle M. GOVINDASAMY, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 333–333

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kyle M. GOVINDASAMY, Defendant-Appellant
No. 17-40062 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed October 20, 2017
Marisa J. Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kyle M. Govindasamy, Pro Se
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.