Court Opinion

ID: 8482188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-08 01:00:23.667598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:49:37.497327
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10202      Document: 00516536238         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/07/2022

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                  No. 22-10202
                                Summary Calendar                              FILED
                                                                      November 7, 2022
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                  Clerk

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Demarcus Smith,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:21-CR-206-2

   Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Demarcus Smith 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).
   Smith 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-10202      Document: 00516536238           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/07/2022

                                     No. 22-10202

   us to make a fair evaluation of Smith’s claim of ineffective assistance of
   counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Smith’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