¶1 The attorney appointed to represent Ely David Aleman Pecina (Aleman) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Aleman has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Aleman’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).
¶2 We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Aleman’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. Aleman’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.