Court Opinion

ID: 4163651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-27 00:04:08.447804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:52.235203
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-10349      Document: 00513969675         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/26/2017

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

                                    No. 16-10349                               FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                         April 26, 2017
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHANNON BUCK,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 3:14-CR-354-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Shannon Buck 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). Buck
has filed a response and moved for leave to file a supplemental response. That
motion is GRANTED. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to
make a fair evaluation of Buck’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10349    Document: 00513969675     Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/26/2017

                                 No. 16-10349

thus 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 Buck’s response and supplemental 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. Buck’s motion to appoint new
counsel is DENIED.

                                       2