United States v. Collins

Case: 22-50720 Document: 00516781519 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50720
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ June 9, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Bryant Cole Collins,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:21-CR-822-1
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The attorney appointed to represent Bryant Cole Collins seeks 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).
Collins has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Collins’s claims of ineffective assistance of
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50720 Document: 00516781519 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2023
No. 22-50720
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 Collinss’s responses. We concur with
counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for
appellate review. However, we note that the judgment contains a clerical
error in that it fails to identify 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II) as a violated
statutory provision. The Government will not be prejudiced if the district
court corrects this omission on remand.
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. The case is REMANDED to the
district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to include 8
U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II) as a violated statutory provision. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 36.
2