
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan CENICEROS-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10134
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 17, 2015.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, William Ernest Hermesmeyer, Assistant Federal' Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DAVIS, JONES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Ceniceros-Gonzalez 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). Ceniceros-Gonzalez has filed a response.

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address Cenice-ros-Gonzalez’s contentions that his guilty plea was induced by force, threats, or an unfulfilled promise that does not appear in the record. See United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir.1984). We therefore decline to consider these claims without prejudice to Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s right, if any, to seek collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n. 11.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ceniceros-Gon-zalez’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Ceniceros-Gonzalez’s request for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set-forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     