Court Opinion

ID: 6104284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-18 19:00:25.17262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:49.390394
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20285     Document: 00516169723         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/18/2022

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

                                                                             FILED
                                                                       January 18, 2022
                                  No. 21-20285                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                Summary Calendar                             Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Tom Grant,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:19-CR-305-3

   Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Tom Grant 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).
   Grant has filed a response, in which he raises, among other things, a claim of

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20285      Document: 00516169723           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/18/2022

                                     No. 21-20285

   ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to
   allow us to make a fair evaluation of Grant’s claim of ineffective assistance of
   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 Grant’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