PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Cruz Diosdado Aranda 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). Diosdado Aranda has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Diosdado Aranda’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider these claims. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). This denial is without prejudice to collateral review: Diosdado Aranda may raise any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255. See id.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Diosdado Aran-da’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. However, we note that, if the imposition of forfeiture was a clerical error as counsel suggests, Diosdado Aranda may move the district court to correct the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
Accordingly, the motion for leaye 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.