Court Opinion

ID: 5121224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-26 18:01:00.343546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:45.507201
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10344     Document: 00516068826         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/26/2021

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

                                                                         FILED
                                  No. 21-10344                     October 26, 2021
                                Summary Calendar                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Dusty Large,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 6:20-CR-29-1

   Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Dusty Large 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).
   Large has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10344      Document: 00516068826           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/26/2021

                                     No. 21-10344

   us to make a fair evaluation of Large’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 Large’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