United States v. Riley

Opinion

Case: 24-40826 Document: 61-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2026

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

No. 24-40826 FILED Summary Calendar January 12, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Kevin Jamal Riley,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:21-CR-284-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Jamal Riley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Riley has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to make a fair evaluation of Riley’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-40826 Document: 61-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2026

No. 24-40826

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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Riley’s responses. 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. Our review of the record reveals a clerical error in the written judgment. The district court orally waived assessments under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA) and the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act (AVAA) based on a finding of indigency, but the written judgment reflects two $5,000 assessments under those statutes. We therefore REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting this clerical error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.