U.S. v. ROE, 17-10138 (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: infco20171215111
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2017
Summary: PER CURIAM . * The attorney appointed to represent Dennis Michael Roe, Jr., 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). Roe has filed "Objections" to his counsel's motion. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roe's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without pr
Summary: PER CURIAM . * The attorney appointed to represent Dennis Michael Roe, Jr., 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). Roe has filed "Objections" to his counsel's motion. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roe's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without pre..
More
PER CURIAM.*
The attorney appointed to represent Dennis Michael Roe, Jr., 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). Roe has filed "Objections" to his counsel's motion. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roe'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. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as the document Roe filed. 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.
FootNotes
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: Leagle
