Court Opinion

ID: 2678908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-06-18 05:00:56.526278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:42.785337
License: Public Domain

Case: 13-10739      Document: 00512666122         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/17/2014

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                                    No. 13-10739
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                                                            June 17, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON RAY ESTEP,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:13-CR-11-2

Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jason Ray Estep
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).        Estep has filed a response, which raises claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel and includes a request for the appointment of
substitute counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-10739    Document: 00512666122     Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/17/2014

                                 No. 13-10739

a fair evaluation of Estep’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 Estep’s response.     We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, Estep’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is
DENIED, 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