Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mazda RASASY, also known as Phatsavong Rasasy, also known as Phuts, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-01
Citations: 642 F. App'x 428
Docket Number: No. 15-30583
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mazda RASASY, also known as Phatsavong Rasasy, also known as Phuts, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 428–429

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mazda RASASY, also known as Phatsavong Rasasy, also known as Phuts, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30583
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 1, 2016.
Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brandon Bonaparte Brown, Seth David Reeg, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Betty Lee Marak, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Mazda Rasasy, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Mazda Rasasy 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). Rasasy has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rasasy'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 Rasasy'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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.