Court Opinion

ID: 4115177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-01-12 01:00:55.516967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:49.786451
License: Public Domain

Case: 16-10663      Document: 00513831855         Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/11/2017

           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 16-10663                                FILED
                                  Summary Calendar                       January 11, 2017
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                                                Clerk

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT EVERHART,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:15-CR-271-6

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent Robert Everhart 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).
Everhart has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Everhart’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10663    Document: 00513831855     Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/11/2017

                                 No. 16-10663

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 Everhart’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