Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James COOLEY, also known as BooBoo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-05
Citations: 589 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 14-30211
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James COOLEY, also known as BooBoo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. James COOLEY, also known as BooBoo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-30211
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 5, 2015.
Emily Katherine Greenfield, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Cooley, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent James Cooley 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). Cooley has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cooley's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein, as well as Cooley'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. The motion for leave to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.