Court Opinion

ID: 9447911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:00:27.045442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.933385
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11051         Document: 00516845128             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/03/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-11051
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                 August 3, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Reginald Rayshawn Taylor,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-95-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          The attorney appointed to represent Reginald Rayshawn Taylor 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). Taylor has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s
   brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur
   with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11051         Document: 00516845128               Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/03/2023

                                           No. 22-11051

   appellate review. 1 Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

           _____________________
           1
               Prior to the appointment of counsel for the appeal, Taylor filed this appeal pro
   se referencing a desire to bring a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel under 28 U.S.C.
   § 2255. Because this is a direct appeal of the original judgment, that statute is not properly
   before us. Our dismissal does not preclude the filing of an appropriate § 2255 claim in the
   district court.

                                                 2