Court Opinion

ID: 4357311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-09 20:00:40.42571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:19:34.957739
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-50035      Document: 00514787934         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/09/2019

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

                                    No. 17-50035                           FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                 January 9, 2019
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CLARENCE EDWARD STEPHENS,

                                                 Defendant - Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 7:16-CR-128-7

Before CLEMENT, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Clarence Edward Stephens on
appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and filed original and supplemental
briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United
States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Stephens has filed responses.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
Stephens’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-50035    Document: 00514787934     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/09/2019

                                 No. 17-50035

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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Stephens’s responses. 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