Case: 15-11069      Document: 00513580568         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/06/2016




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

                                    No. 15-11069                          FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                     July 6, 2016
                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DERRICK HARRIS,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:14-CR-104-1


Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Derrick Harris 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). Harris has filed a response in which he alleges that his counsel
erroneously advised him that he would be eligible for the prison’s residential
drug abuse program. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-11069    Document: 00513580568     Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/06/2016


                                 No. 15-11069

make a fair evaluation of Harris’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we
therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Harris’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