United States v. Reginald Ellison ( 2018 )

Case: 17-30863 Document: 00514759599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-30863 FILED
Conference Calendar December 13, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
REGINALD ELLISON, also known as Ronda Ellison,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:11-CR-151-1
Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Reginald Ellison 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).
Ellison did not file a response. Following this court’s order, counsel also filed
a supplemental Anders brief addressing whether the district court’s above-
Guidelines revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-30863 Document: 00514759599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2018
No. 17-30863
Ellison filed a response to counsel’s supplemental brief, in which he
argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on direct
appeal, and on collateral review. The record is not sufficiently developed to
allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ellison’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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 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.
Ellison’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.
2