United States v. Morgan

Opinion

Case: 24-60249 Document: 141-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/16/2025

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

No. 24-60249 FILED Summary Calendar September 16, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

James Richard Morgan,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:22-CR-62-1 ______________________________

Before Richman, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent James Richard Morgan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Morgan has filed several responses pro se, as well as motions to

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-60249 Document: 141-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/16/2025

No. 24-60249

proceed pro se, to withdraw filings by counsel, to dismiss the appeal, and for a copy of the sentencing transcript. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Morgan’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). Morgan’s motion to proceed pro se on appeal is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Morgan’s responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Morgan’s remaining pro se motions are DENIED.