PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Marco Munoz 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). Munoz has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Munoz’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to whatever right he may have to raise them on 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 Munoz’s response, We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Munoz’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cm. 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.