The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Antonio Rivera-Porras 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). Rivera-Porras has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rivera-Por-ras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Because that is usually the case, a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is the preferred method for raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 503-09, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003). We therefore decline to consider Rivera-Porras’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without prejudice to collateral review.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rivera-Porras’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous 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 5m Cir. R. 42.2.