Case: 18-10129      Document: 00514784128         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/07/2019




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

                                    No. 18-10129                              FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                    January 7, 2019
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GREGORY JEROME MITCHELL, also known as Jimmy Jombo Kalu,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 5:17-CR-68-1


Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gregory Jerome
Mitchell 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). Mitchell has filed a response. The record is not
sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Mitchell’s claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-10129     Document: 00514784128    Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/07/2019


                                 No. 18-10129

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 Mitchell’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