UNITED STATES v. CHANEY (2021)

The attorney appointed to represent Frank Chaney 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). Chaney has filed a response. To the extent Chaney raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claim; we therefore decline to consider it 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 Chaney'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, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. To the extent Chaney moves for the appointment of substitute counsel, the motion is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

PER CURIAM:*