
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stacey Lair LEE-EASILEY, also known as Stacey L. Easiley, also known as Stacey Lee, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-20371
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 10, 2016.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Evan Gray Howze, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stacey Lair Lee-Easiley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Cali fornia, 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). Lee-Easiley has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lee-Easiley’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the 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 Lee-Easiley’s response. Although counsel addresses the validity of Lee-Easiley’s appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n. 3 (5th Cir.2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir.2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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. Lee-Easiley’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir, R, 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     