The attorney appointed to represent Kendrick Chappie has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Chappie has filed a response requesting an extension of time to respond to various orders to show cause issued by this court, and to investigate his counsel’s performance.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Chappie’s response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Chappie’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Chappie’s motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary because counsel has adequately satisfied each order to show cause. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review because the defendant validly agreed to waive appeal. 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.