Court Opinion

ID: 4434241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-29 00:00:20.353082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:39.406925
License: Public Domain

Case: 18-11194      Document: 00515096363         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/28/2019

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                    No. 18-11194                         August 28, 2019
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENNETH TANNIEHILL,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:17-CR-154-5

Before CLEMENT, GRAVES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Kenneth Tanniehill has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Tanniehill has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Tanniehill’s claims of ineffective assistance of

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
    Case: 18-11194    Document: 00515096363     Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/28/2019

                                 No. 18-11194

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 Tanniehill’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