United States v. Shannon Buck ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-10349 Summary Calendar

Judges: Davis, Southwick, Higginson

Filed Date: 4/26/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024