United States v. Smith

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 2021
Docket19-30913
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Smith (United States v. Smith) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Smith, (5th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

Case: 19-30913 Document: 00515707461 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2021

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

FILED January 14, 2021 No. 19-30913 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leroy Smith,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:15-CR-185-1

Before Graves, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Leroy Smith 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). Smith has filed a response. 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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-30913 Document: 00515707461 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/14/2021

No. 19-30913

us to make a fair evaluation of Smith’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 Smith’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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Flores
632 F.3d 229 (Fifth Circuit, 2011)
United States v. Gilbert Isgar
739 F.3d 829 (Fifth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Smith, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-smith-ca5-2021.