United States v. Scott

Opinion

Case: 21-60825 Document: 00516345693 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/06/2022

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

FILED June 6, 2022 No. 21-60825 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Georgio R. Scott,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:20-CR-17-1

Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * 0F

The attorney appointed to represent Georgio R. Scott 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). Scott has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60825 Document: 00516345693 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/06/2022

No. 21-60825

us to make a fair evaluation of Scott’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). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Scott’s timely filed responses. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Thus, 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. To the extent that Scott moves to proceed pro se, his request is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).