Case: 15-50580      Document: 00513473085         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/20/2016




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                    No. 15-50580                           April 20, 2016
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHERY RENE LEDFORD,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:15-CR-15-2


Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Shery Rene Ledford has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967), and United States v. Flores, 

(5th Cir. 2011).
Ledford has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Ledford’s claims of ineffective assistance of




       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 15-50580    Document: 00513473085     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/20/2016


                                 No. 15-50580

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 

, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Ledford’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.




                                       2