Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Dewayne Jones, Defendant-Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CR-90-3

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. [*]

The attorney appointed to represent Roderick Dewayne Jones has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jones has filed responses and moves for the appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Jones'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 briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Jones'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. Jones's motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. [*] Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

United States v. Jones
(Feb 1, 2022)