     Case: 16-11787      Document: 00514342051         Page: 1    Date Filed: 02/08/2018




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                                                        United States Court of Appeals

                                    No. 16-11787
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                      February 8, 2018
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                      Clerk


                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHAYCE DANIEL HODGES, also known as Staks,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:16-CR-132-6


Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Chayce Daniel Hodges 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).     Hodges has filed a response.           The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Hodges’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-11787    Document: 00514342051    Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/08/2018


                                No. 16-11787

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 Hodges’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, counsel is excused
from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hodges’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.




                                      2
