
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Johnny Frank WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-11312
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 13, 2015.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Shawn Lee Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Peter Christian Smythe, Peter Smythe, P.C., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Johnny Frank White, Texarkana, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Johnny Frank White has moved for leave to withdraw. He has filed a brief and a supplemental 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). White has responded to both of counsel’s briefs. In his second response, White requests an extension of time to retain counsel, seek substitution of retained counsel for his appointed attorney, and have his retained counsel file a new brief. -That motion is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).

To the extent White asserts that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of White’s claim. We therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as White’s responses. 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 Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     