PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Tavira Espinoza 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). Tavira Espinoza has filed a response and has moved for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Tavira Espinoza’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 Tavira Espinoza’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, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir, R. 42.2. Tavira Espinoza’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. Ri 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47,5.4.