Court Opinion

ID: 4092195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-10-25 00:01:03.505252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:27.533089
License: Public Domain

Case: 15-20744      Document: 00513731444         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/24/2016

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

                                    No. 15-20744                                FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                       October 24, 2016
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EMANUEL DANDRE WADE, also known as Marcus, also known as Emanual
Dandre Wade,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:14-CR-97-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Emanuel Dandre Wade 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). Wade has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed
to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Wade’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-20744    Document: 00513731444     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/24/2016

                                 No. 15-20744

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 Wade’s response.         Wade’s request for an
evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 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