Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Redmon ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-16
Citations: 563 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 13-20304
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Redmon ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Richard Redmon ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20304
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 16, 2014.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Frank Aguilar, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before PRADO, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Richard Redmon Anderson 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). Anderson has filed an untimely response, which we construe as a motion for leave to file an out-of-time response and GRANT.
The record does not provide sufficient detail to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Anderson'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). We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Anderson's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.