Court Opinion

ID: 4691341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-29 00:00:28.304851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:54.761498
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10584     Document: 00515880494         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/28/2021

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                         FILED
                                                                     May 28, 2021
                                  No. 20-10584
                               Conference Calendar                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Judith Codd Calzadilla,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CR-302-2

   Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Judith Codd Calzadilla has
   moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental brief in
   accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States
   v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Codd has filed responses. The record

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10584     Document: 00515880494           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/28/2021

                                    No. 20-10584

   is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Codd’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 Codd’s responses. 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.

                                         2