Court Opinion

ID: 5127001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-18 01:00:26.568263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:08.051476
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40249      Document: 00516097165         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/17/2021

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                                                          FILED
                                                                  November 17, 2021
                                  No. 21-40249
                                Summary Calendar                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Kathe Tran Vo,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:19-CR-309-1

   Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Kathe Tran Vo 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).
   Vo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40249     Document: 00516097165           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/17/2021

                                    No. 21-40249

   to make a fair evaluation of Vo’s claims of ineffective assistance 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 Vo’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. Vo’s motion for the appointment of
   new counsel, or, alternatively, the right to proceed pro se is DENIED. See
   United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

                                         2