United States v. Walker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 2, 2026
• Docket: 25-10340
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-10340 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2026

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

No. 25-10340 FILED March 2, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Taurick Demond Walker,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:23-CR-378-1 ______________________________

Before Wiener, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Taurick Demond Walker has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Counsel also has implicitly moved to supplement the record with copies of investigative documents produced by the Government during the

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10340 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2026

No. 25-10340

district court proceedings. Walker has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Walker’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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Walker’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s implied motion for leave to supplement the record and motion for leave to withdraw are GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.