Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20371/USCOURTS-ca5-15-20371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stacey Lair Lee-Easiley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20371

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

STACEY LAIR LEE-EASILEY, also known as Stacey L. Easiley, also known 

as Stacey Lee,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-662

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stacey Lair LeeEasiley 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). Lee-Easiley has filed a response. The record is not 

sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lee-Easiley’s

 

* 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

March 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20371 Document: 00513414972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2016
No. 15-20371

2

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the

claims 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 Lee-Easiley’s response. Although counsel 

addresses the validity of Lee-Easiley’s appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss 

the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An 

appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s 

compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders

brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 

2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was 

knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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. 

Lee-Easiley’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-20371 Document: 00513414972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2016