Court Opinion

ID: 4684176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-05 18:00:32.660147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:37.629520
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-50913     Document: 00515849395         Page: 1     Date Filed: 05/05/2021

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

                                                                            FILED
                                  No. 19-50913                           May 5, 2021
                               Conference Calendar                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Vincent Lamar Barnett, Jr.,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:17-CR-566-1

   Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Vincent Lamar Barnett, Jr., 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). Barnett has filed a response. To the extent that Barnett

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-50913     Document: 00515849395           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/05/2021

                                    No. 19-50913

   argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance, the record is not
   sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of these claims;
   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 Barnett’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