Case: 19-20817      Document: 00515597669         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/12/2020




              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                                                        October 12, 2020
                                  No. 19-20817                            Lyle W. Cayce
                               Conference Calendar                             Clerk


   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Mack Biggers,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:18-CR-740-1


   Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Mack Biggers 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).
   Biggers has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow


          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-20817      Document: 00515597669           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/12/2020




                                     No. 19-20817


   us to make a fair evaluation of Biggers’s claims of ineffective assistance of
   counsel; 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 Biggers’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