Court Opinion

ID: 5126731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-11-17 19:00:35.288966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:47.119013
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10412     Document: 00516096743         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/17/2021

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

                                                                            FILED
                                  No. 21-10412                      November 17, 2021
                                Summary Calendar                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Mark Lucio,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 5:19-CR-143-1

   Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Mark Lucio 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).
   Lucio has filed a response. To the extent Lucio raises such allegations, the

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10412      Document: 00516096743           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/17/2021

                                     No. 21-10412

   record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
   any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to
   consider such 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 Lucio’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. Lucio’s pro se
   motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United
   States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

                                          2