USA v. Michelle Freytag

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-20646 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: TMR , Judge: PRO , Judge: JWE Mandate pull date is 06/12/2017 for Appellant Michelle R. Freytag; denying motion to remand case filed by Appellant Ms. Michelle R. Freytag [8413592-3]; denying motion to strike brief filed by Appellant Ms. Michelle R. Freytag [8413592-4]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Ms. Michelle R. Freytag [8413592-5]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Margaret Loraine Schmucker [8162417-2] [15-20646]

Case: 15-20646

Document: 00514001929

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-20646
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
May 22, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
MICHELLE R. FREYTAG,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CR-67-1
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Michelle R. Freytag 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).
Freytag has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Freytag’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-20646

Document: 00514001929

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

No. 15-20646
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014);
United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).
We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Freytag’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, Freytag’s motion for appointment of new
counsel, to strike the briefs, and to remand the case to the district court for
resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2.

2