Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rachel HARDY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-18
Citations: 642 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 15-10608
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rachel HARDY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 336–336

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rachel HARDY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10608
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 18, 2016.
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Lee Calhoun, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Rachel Hardy 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). Hardy has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hardy's claim that her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary due to 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 Hardy'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. Hardy's motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.