Court Opinion

ID: 4468235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-30 19:00:22.48969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:58.413886
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-60188      Document: 00515251681         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/30/2019

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

                                    No. 19-60188                            FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                December 30, 2019
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AMBROSE DEJUAN NELSON,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Mississippi
                             USDC No. 1:18-CR-121-1

Before ELROD, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Ambrose Dejuan Nelson 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). Nelson has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed
to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Nelson’s claims of ineffective assistance

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 19-60188    Document: 00515251681     Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/30/2019

                                 No. 19-60188

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 Nelson’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