Court Opinion

ID: 4345859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-11-30 01:00:17.490295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:09:19.315052
License: Public Domain

Case: 18-60179      Document: 00514742125         Page: 1    Date Filed: 11/29/2018

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 18-60179                              FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                  November 29, 2018
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TONY D. CRAWFORD,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                  Appeals from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Mississippi
                             USDC No. 1:17-CR-14-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Tony D. Crawford 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).
Crawford has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Crawford’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-60179    Document: 00514742125     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/29/2018

                                 No. 18-60179

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 Crawford’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