Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eileen Beth PRUITT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 653 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 15-40476
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eileen Beth PRUITT, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eileen Beth PRUITT, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-40476
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/21/2016
Ernest Gonzalez, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Eileen Pruitt, Marlin, TX, Pro Se.
Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

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Pursuant to 5th Cir, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.