The attorney .appointed to represent Michael Roy Roberson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Roberson has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roberson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice 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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Roberson’s responses. 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. Roberson’s second request for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).