Court Opinion

ID: 4172608
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-30 18:03:57.098903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.050305
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-31022      Document: 00514010701         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/30/2017

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

                                    No. 16-31022
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                         May 30, 2017
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                      Clerk

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES C. LONDON, also known as “C”,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Louisiana
                             USDC No. 3:15-CR-83-2

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Charles C. London 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).
London has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of London’s claim of ineffective assistance of

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-31022    Document: 00514010701     Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/30/2017

                                 No. 16-31022

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 London’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