The attorney appointed to represent Chadrick Waters has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance wit}i 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). Waters has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Waters’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

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

Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment, which fails to reflect the dismissal of certain counts of the indictment and superseding indictment. The record shows that Waters was convicted and sentenced on Count Four of the superseding indictment and that the remaining counts were dismissed. The amended judgment should therefore reflect that'the remaining counts were dismissed on the Government’s motion. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 371-72 (5th Cir. 2003).

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. Waters’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). The case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.