Court Opinion

ID: 4658577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-09 01:00:24.932278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:54.036710
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-10001      Document: 00515737297         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/08/2021

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

                                                                       FILED
                                                                 February 8, 2021
                                  No. 20-10001                    Lyle W. Cayce
                               Conference Calendar                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Demario Williams,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:17-CR-18-4

   Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Demario Williams 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).
   Williams has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to

          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10001        Document: 00515737297       Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/08/2021

                                   No. 20-10001

   allow us to make a fair evaluation of Williams’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 Williams’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