Court Opinion

ID: 4286963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-21 20:01:08.202258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:53:22.635750
License: Public Domain

Case: 17-10281      Document: 00514520629         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/20/2018

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                    United States Court of Appeals
                                                                             Fifth Circuit

                                    No. 17-10281
                                                                           FILED
                                                                       June 20, 2018
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                           Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHAD JOHNSON, also known as “Chad Ocho Hood Fame”,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:16-CR-245-1

Before SOUTHWICK, WILLETT, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Chad Johnson 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).
Johnson has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Johnson’s claims 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-10281    Document: 00514520629     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/20/2018

                                 No. 17-10281

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 Johnson’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. Johnson’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

                                       2