
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose GUTIERREZ VILLA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-20185
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 16, 2015.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Jose Gutierrez Villa, USP Hazelton, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Gutierrez Villa has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel on appeal 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). Gutierrez Villa has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently-developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Gutierrez Villa’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.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record, as well as Gutierrez Villa’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The motion for leave to withdraw is therefore GRANTED, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities in this case. Gutierrez Villa’s request to proceed pro se is DENIED. See United States v. Polanco-Ozorto, 772 F.3d 1053, 1055 (5th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (“[A] criminal defendant’s motion to proceed pro se on appeal will be denied if it is filed after the defendant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief, as such a request is invoked too late.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     