Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christy McCELLON, also known as 90, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-25
Citations: 631 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 15-10526
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christy McCELLON, also known as 90, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 631
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christy McCELLON, also known as 90, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10526
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 25, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John W. Stickels, Esq., Stiekels & Associates, P.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Christy McCellon 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). McCellon has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of McCellon'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.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as McCellon'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. McCellon's motion for the appointment of new 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.