Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shawn Scott BANTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-23
Citations: 667 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 15-10700 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shawn Scott BANTA, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shawn Scott BANTA, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-10700 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Date Filed: 06/23/2016
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Shawn Scott Banta, Adelanto, CA, Pro Se.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Shawn Scott Banta 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). Banta has not filed a response.
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, including counsel's conclusion that the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider such a claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We also note that, contrary to counsel's assertion, there is no clerical error in the district court's Statement of Reasons (SOR). The SOR correctly reflects that the sentence was within the guideline range and that the difference between the maximum and minimum of the guideline range does not exceed 24 months. Accordingly, counsel's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.