Court Opinion

ID: 4253300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-09 19:00:22.181193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:53:51.553213
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-50194      Document: 00514379920         Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/09/2018

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                                                      United States Court of Appeals

                                    No. 17-50194
                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                                                             FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                       March 9, 2018
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                    Clerk

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NICHOLAS WOODS,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:16-CR-101-1

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Nicholas Woods 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).
Woods has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Woods’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-50194    Document: 00514379920     Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/09/2018

                                 No. 17-50194

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 Woods’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.

                                       2