Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dejuan Lamont WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-20
Citations: 691 F. App'x 152
Docket Number: No. 16-10314 Conference Calendar
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dejuan Lamont WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 152–153

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dejuan Lamont WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-10314 Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 20, 2017
James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Dejuan Lamont Willis, Pro Se
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent De-juan Lamont Willis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief pursuant to 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). Willis has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Willis'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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Willis's response. We concur with counsel's assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Willis's motion to vacate sentence and remand for resentencing is DENIED, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.