Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Steve HAYS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-19
Citations: 568 F. App'x 326
Docket Number: No. 13-10977
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Steve HAYS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 326–327

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Steve HAYS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-10977
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 19, 2014.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Lowell King, Hamilton & Associates, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Larry Steve Hays 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). Hays has filed a response and a request for the appointment of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hays'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 Hays's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Hays's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.