Court Opinion

ID: 4384385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-05 00:00:22.058531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:36.051169
License: Public Domain

Case: 18-40464      Document: 00514902572         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/04/2019

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

                                    No. 18-40464                                  FILED
                                 Conference Calendar                           April 4, 2019
                                                                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                  Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DAVID FRANKLIN BECK, JR.,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 6:15-CR-4-2

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent David Franklin Beck, Jr., 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). Beck has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed
to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Beck’s claims of ineffective assistance

       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 18-40464    Document: 00514902572     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/04/2019

                                 No. 18-40464

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 Beck’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. Beck’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

                                       2