Court Opinion

ID: 4651709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-15 01:00:18.467971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:50.955006
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-30913     Document: 00515707461         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/14/2021

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

                                                                          FILED
                                                                   January 14, 2021
                                  No. 19-30913
                               Conference Calendar                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Leroy Smith,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:15-CR-185-1

   Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Leroy 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-30913      Document: 00515707461           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/14/2021

                                     No. 19-30913

   us to make a fair evaluation of Smith’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 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