United States v. Robin Haigler ( 2018 )

Case: 16-51361 Document: 00514431645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 16-51361 FILED
Summary Calendar
April 16, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ROBIN RENEE HAIGLER,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CR-39-3
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Robin Renee Haigler has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Haigler has filed several responses.
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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: 16-51361 Document: 00514431645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2018
No. 16-51361
The record is insufficient to permit us to consider Haigler’s claim that
she was induced to plead guilty by her trial counsel’s unkept promises regard-
ing sentencing and his failure to explain the plea process. See United States v.
Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176–78 (5th Cir. 1984). She may raise such claims in a
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Id. at 178 n.11. Nor do we reach Haigler’s remaining
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, as this is not one of the “rare cases in
which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly evaluate the merits of the
claim” on direct appeal. United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014)
(quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Haigler’s responses. We concur with counsel’s as-
sessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Counsel’s 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