The attorney appointed to represent Eder Cledys Rodriguez 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 *165 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider such claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rodriguez’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 Cir. R. 42.2.