Court Opinion

ID: 4690324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-05-26 18:00:50.521027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:59.621332
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10801      Document: 00515876611         Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/26/2021

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

                                                                         FILED
                                                                     May 26, 2021
                                  No. 20-10801
                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                               Conference Calendar                       Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Joseph Dean Taylor,

                                                          Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:19-CR-91-1

   Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Dean 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 filed a response. The record is not sufficiently

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10801     Document: 00515876611           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/26/2021

                                    No. 20-10801

   developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Taylor’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 Taylor’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