United States v. Michelle Freytag
This text of 689 F. App'x 382 (United States v. Michelle Freytag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Summary Calendar
The attorney appointed to represent Michelle R. Freytag has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Freytag has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Freytag’s 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); United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Freytag’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, Freytag’s motion for appointment of new counsel, to strike the briefs, and to remand the case to the district court for resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *384 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5,4.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
689 F. App'x 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-michelle-freytag-ca5-2017.