The attorney appointed to represent Veronica Prendez 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). Prendez was not timely in filing a response, and her motion to file an out-of-time response was denied. The motion raised no issues ripe for consideration on direct appeal. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Also, her request for the appointment of new counsel was untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 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.