     Case: 16-10190      Document: 00514390645         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/16/2018




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                                    No. 16-10190
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                  Summary Calendar                              FILED
                                                                          March 16, 2018
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                       Clerk

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PATRICK D. LENARD,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:14-CR-451-1


Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Patrick D. Lenard has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Lenard has filed a response. He has also moved for the appointment of new
counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Lenard’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 16-10190    Document: 00514390645     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/16/2018


                                 No. 16-10190

decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United
States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
      We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Lenard’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, the motion for the
appointment of new counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                       2
