PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Sa-dar Dakar Cade 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). Cade has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Cade’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to Cade later raising them on collateral review. 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).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief, the relevant portions of the record, and Cade’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.