The attorney appointed to represent Fu-naki Falahola 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). Falahola has filed a response. To the extent he makes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to fairly evaluate it; we therefore decline to consider any such claim 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 Falahola’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 Cm. R. 42.2. We further DENY AS MOOT Falahola’s pro se motions to substitute and DENY AS MOOT his motion for extraordinary relief.