Case ID: f-appx_573/html/0353-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Young Okoro ANYANWU, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30182
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 17, 2014.
    Catherine M. Maraist, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helina S. Dayries, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Young Okoro Anyanwu, Florence, CO, pro se.
    Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Young Okoro Anyanwu has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Anyanwu has filed responses.

By unconditionally pleading guilty, Any-anwu waived his right to appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress. See United States v. Sanchez Guerrero, 546 F.3d 328, 331 (5th Cir.2008). The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Anyanwu’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, invalid guilty plea or waiver; we therefore decline to consider these claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.2014); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir.1984).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Anyanwu’s responses. 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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.