The attorney appointed to represent Lenyn Acosta 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). Acosta has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Acosta’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to such right as Acosta may have to 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 and the relevant parts of the record reflected therein, as well as Acosta’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 Cie. R. 42.2. The motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.