Court Opinion

ID: 4678699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-20 00:00:40.81214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:26.772978
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10277      Document: 00515826826         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/19/2021

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

                                                                              FILED
                                                                          April 19, 2021
                                  No. 20-10277                           Lyle W. Cayce
                               Conference Calendar                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Roy Mead,

                                                          Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CR-342-1

   Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Roy Mead 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).
   Mead has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10277      Document: 00515826826           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/19/2021

                                     No. 20-10277

   us to make a fair evaluation of Mead’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 Mead’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