Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40789/USCOURTS-ca5-14-40789-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shannon Guess Richardson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40789

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHANNON GUESS RICHARDSON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-13

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Shannon Guess Richardson 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). Richardson has not filed a response. Counsel also moves to seal 

the record excerpts on appeal because they contain documents that were sealed 

in the district court.

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 14-40789 Document: 00513066735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2015
No. 14-40789

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair 

evaluation of any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which Richardson 

wishes to raise; we therefore decline to consider any such claims without 

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Counsel’s motions to seal 

the record excerpts and for leave to withdraw are GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 14-40789 Document: 00513066735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2015