USA v. Gary Robinson
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [12-41274 Dismissed as frivolous ] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 03/14/2014 for Appellant Gary Eugene Robinson; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Frank Warren Henderson, Esq. [7360264-2] [12-41274]
Date Filed: 02/21/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
February 21, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
GARY EUGENE ROBINSON,
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CR-235-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gary Eugene
Robinson 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).
Robinson has filed a response.
The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Robinson’s claims
of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 02/21/2014
on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court
since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the
allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as
Robinson’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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?