United States v. Ragsdale

Opinion

Case: 23-10948 Document: 00517066001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2024

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

FILED No. 23-10948 February 15, 2024 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Christopher Allen Ragsdale,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22-CR-72-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Christopher Allen Ragsdale 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). Ragsdale has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ragsdale’s claims of

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-10948 Document: 00517066001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2024

No. 23-10948

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). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ragsdale’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. Ragsdale’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902- 03 (5th Cir. 1998).