Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Berley SCOTT, also known as Fresh, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-06
Citations: 589 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 13-20557
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Berley SCOTT, also known as Fresh, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 266–266

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John Berley SCOTT, also known as Fresh, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-20557
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Jan. 6, 2015.
Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Berley Scott, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent John Berley Scott 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). Scott has filed a response. The record is not Sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Scott's claim of ineffective assistance of 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.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 123, 190 L.Ed.2d 94 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Scott'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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4/