     Case: 13-41279      Document: 00512708927         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/23/2014




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals

                                    No. 13-41279
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                          July 23, 2014
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                       Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DIETRICK LEWIS JOHNSON,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:12-CR-80


Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Dietrick Lewis Johnson has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th
Cir. 2011). Johnson has filed a response. To the extent Johnson complains of
his counsels’ performance, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-41279      Document: 00512708927   Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/23/2014


                                 No. 13-41279

therefore decline to consider such a claim, 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 Johnson’s response. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, 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.




                                       2
