Case ID: f-appx_427/html/0401-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      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. Phillip ROBINETTE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-40702
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 8, 2011.
    Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carlo D’Angelo, Counsel, Mineloa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The attorney appointed to represent Phillip Robinette has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief 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). Robinette has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Robinette’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Robinette’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. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.