United States v. Derr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 25-40158
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-40158 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-40158 FILED Summary Calendar October 21, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

James Derr,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:23-CR-60-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent James Derr 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). Derr has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Derr’s claims of ineffective assistance of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40158 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2025

No. 25-40158

counsel or his claim that his guilty plea was based on an unkept promise; 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); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177-78 & n.11 (5th Cir. 1984). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Derr’s 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. Derr’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).