United States v. Church ( 2023 )

Case: 23-40169 Document: 00516922385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-40169 FILED
Summary Calendar October 5, 2023
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joseph Church,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:17-CR-25-1
______________________________
Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Church 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).
_____________________
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-40169 Document: 00516922385 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2023
No. 23-40169
Church’s untimely motion for appointment of substitute counsel is
DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
Church’s untimely response, which we have construed as a motion for
leave to file an out-of-time response to the Anders brief, raises issues that are
beyond the scope of the remand in this case and is DENIED.
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of Church’s unspecified claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;
we therefore decline to consider it 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. 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.
2