Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chayce Daniel HODGES, also known as Staks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-08
Citations: 710 F. App'x 643
Docket Number: No. 16-11787 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chayce Daniel HODGES, also known as Staks, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 643–643

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chayce Daniel HODGES, also known as Staks, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-11787 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed February 8, 2018
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Chayce Daniel Hodges, Pro Se.
Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Chayce Daniel Hodges 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). Hodges has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hodges'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 Hodges'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 Cíe. RÍ 42.2. Hodges's motion for appointment of 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.