Case: 14-40286      Document: 00513211985         Page: 1    Date Filed: 09/29/2015




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

                                    No. 14-40286
                                                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                                                  FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                        September 29, 2015
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                         Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONZELL MITCHELL,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:13-CR-130


Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Ronzell 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 claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-40286     Document: 00513211985     Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/29/2015


                                  No. 14-40286

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 

, 841 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 

(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, Mitchell’s motions for appointment of new
counsel and to strike counsel’s Anders brief are DENIED, and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2