Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert JOHNSON, also known as Skinny Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-21
Citations: 646 F. App'x 372
Docket Number: No. 15-30447
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert JOHNSON, also known as Skinny Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 646
Pages: 372–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert JOHNSON, also known as Skinny Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30447
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 21, 2016.
Maurice Edwin Landrieu, Esq1., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kevin G. Boitmann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollens-head Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Autumn Alycia Town, Law Office of Autumn Town, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Robert Johnson 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). Johnson has filed a response, arguing that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Johnson's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Johnson'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, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.