Court Opinion

ID: 4229499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-16 01:00:29.587032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:57.651782
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-10138      Document: 00514275065         Page: 1    Date Filed: 12/15/2017

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

                                    No. 17-10138                                FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                      December 15, 2017
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DENNIS MICHAEL ROE, JR.,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:16-CR-173-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Dennis Michael Roe, Jr., 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). Roe has filed “Objections” to his counsel’s motion. The record is not
sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roe’s claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-10138     Document: 00514275065    Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/15/2017

                                 No. 17-10138

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 the document Roe filed. 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