PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Mark Anthony Sanchez 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 (6th Cir. 2011). Sanchez has filed a response suggesting, inter alia, that his guilty plea was induced by promises outside of the plea agreement and that his counsel was ineffective. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claims; we therefore decline to consider them without prejudice to their consideration on collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177-78 & n.11 (5th Cir. 1984).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sanchez’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 Cíe. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not he published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.