
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricardo ARELLANO-ROMERO, also known as Adrian Chaves, also known as Ricardo Arellano Romero, also known as Ricardo Romero-Arellando, also known as Adrian Chavez, also known as Fernando Quintana, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-20755
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 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, 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 Ricardo Arellano-Romero 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). Arellano-Romero has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Arellano-Romero’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 Arellano-Romé-ro’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, and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. Arellano-Romero’s motions for appointment of substitute counsel or to proceed pro se and for transcripts are DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). 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.
     