United States v. Stacey Lee-Easiley

Case: 15-20371 Document: 00513414972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 15-20371 FILED
Summary Calendar March 10, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
STACEY LAIR LEE-EASILEY, also known as Stacey L. Easiley, also known
as Stacey Lee,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-662
Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stacey Lair Lee-
Easiley 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). Lee-Easiley has filed a response. The record is not
sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lee-Easiley’s
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-20371 Document: 00513414972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2016
No. 15-20371
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 brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Lee-Easiley’s response. Although counsel
addresses the validity of Lee-Easiley’s appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss
the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An
appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s
compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders
brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir.
2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003).
Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was
knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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.
Lee-Easiley’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
2