Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamison Ross ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-27
Citations: 683 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 16-40490 Summary Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamison Ross ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamison Ross ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-40490 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed March 27, 2017
Milton Andrew Stover, Esq., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jamison Ross Ellis, Pro Se
Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jamison Ross Ellis 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). Ellis has filed a response, in which he requests new appointed counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ellis's 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 Ellis'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, Ellis's motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.