Case: 15-30665      Document: 00513704832         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/04/2016




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

                                    No. 15-30665                               FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                       October 4, 2016
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRADLEY SMITH,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 6:13-CR-52-1


Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Bradley Smith 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).
Smith has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Smith’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel;




       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-30665    Document: 00513704832    Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/04/2016


                                No. 15-30665

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 Smith’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