Case: 14-30886      Document: 00513364825         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/02/2016




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 14-30886                                   FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                           February 2, 2016
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

COREY L. MOSES,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 3:11-CR-124


Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Corey L. Moses has moved for leave
to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 

(1967), and United States v. Flores, 

(5th Cir. 2011).
Moses has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Moses’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;
we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 14-30886       Document: 00513364825   Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/02/2016


                                  No. 14-30886

review. See United States v. Isgar, 

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

(2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Moses’s responses. 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.    Moses’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is
DENIED.




                                        2