Court Opinion

ID: 6112844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-26 19:00:30.602118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:41.205573
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40462     Document: 00516180664         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/26/2022

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

                                                                            FILED
                                  No. 21-40462                       January 26, 2022
                                Summary Calendar
                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                             Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Ronald Wayne Rogers, Jr.,

                                                         Defendant—Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:20-CR-46-2

   Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ronald Wayne
   Rogers, Jr., 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). Rogers has filed a response. 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40462      Document: 00516180664          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/26/2022

                                    No. 21-40462

   record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of
   Rogers’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 Rogers’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