The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ceniceros-Gonzalez 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). Ceniceros-Gonzalez has filed a response.

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address Cenice-ros-Gonzalez’s contentions that his guilty plea was induced by force, threats, or an unfulfilled promise that does not appear in the record. See United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore decline to consider these claims without prejudice to Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s right, if any, to seek collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n. 11.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ceniceros-Gon-zalez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s request *145 for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, counsel’s 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.