Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10667/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10667-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christina Staton
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10667

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

CHRISTINA STATON,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CR-451

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Christina Staton 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).

Staton has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Staton’s claim of ineffective assistance of 

 

* 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 8, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10667 Document: 00513411350 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2016
No. 15-10667

2

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 Staton’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, Staton’s motion for appointment of 

substitute counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.

R. 42.2.

However, the judgment contains a clerical error pertaining to Staton’s 

conviction for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance, to wit: it identifies the statutes violated as “21 USC § 846 [21 USC 

§ 846(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C)]”; the bracketed portion should instead refer to 21 

U.S.C § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). We therefore REMAND to the district court 

for correction of this clerical error. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 36.

 Case: 15-10667 Document: 00513411350 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2016