United States v. Rambo
This text of United States v. Rambo (United States v. Rambo) 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
Case: 19-10229 Document: 00515851131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED May 6, 2021 No. 19-10229 Lyle W. Cayce Conference Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Brandon Jamaal Rambo,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:18-CR-186-3
Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Brandon Jamaal Rambo 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). Rambo has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-10229 Document: 00515851131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2021
No. 19-10229
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Rambo’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Rambo’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. Rambo’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Rambo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-rambo-ca5-2021.