United States v. Thomas

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Thomas. Read the opinion of the Court — 997 F.3d 603
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided May 18, 2021·No. 20-10950·Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-10950 Document: 00515867065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2021

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

FILED May 18, 2021 No. 20-10950 Lyle W. Cayce Conference Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Carrington Marshall Thomas,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-90-1

Before King, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Carrington Marshall Thomas 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). Thomas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-10950 Document: 00515867065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2021

No. 20-10950

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Thomas’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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

United States v. Thomas, (5th Cir. 2021).

United States v. Thomas (United States v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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