USA v. William Jewell

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-30687 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JLW , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 07/07/2014 for Appellant William A. Jewell; denying motion to file document out of time filed by Appellant Mr. William A. Jewell [7608051-2]; denying motion view sealed document [7607997-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Brian David Landry, Esq. [7480511-2] [13-30687]

Case: 13-30687

Document: 00512665312

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/16/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 13-30687
Summary Calendar

FILED
June 16, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM A. JEWELL, also known as Vladimir Putin,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:11-CR-146-4
Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent William A. Jewell 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).
Jewell has filed a response. To the extent Jewell complains of his counsel’s
performance, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair
evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 13-30687

Document: 00512665312

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/16/2014

No. 13-30687
to consider such a claim, 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 Jewell’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. Jewell’s belated motions to view sealed documents and to file
an out-of-time supplemental response to the Anders brief are DENIED. All
other motions are DENIED.

2