USA v. Craig Pipp
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-40317 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: TMR , Judge: JES , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 05/12/2015 for Appellant Craig Pipps; denying as untimely motion to relieve attorney filed by Appellant Mr. Craig Pipps [7727171-3]; denying as untimely motion to proceed pro se filed by Appellant Mr. Craig Pipps [7727171-4]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Douglas Milton Barlow [7711072-2] [14-40317]
Date Filed: 04/21/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
April 21, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
CRAIG PIPPS, also known as Lone Wolf,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:12-CR-119-5
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Craig Pipps 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).
Pipps has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us
to make a fair evaluation of Pipps’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel;
we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 04/21/2015
review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Pipps’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. Pipps’s request to relieve counsel and to proceed pro se is
DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th
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?