United States v. Collins

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: June 9, 2023
• Docket: 22-50720
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.