USA v. Dejuan Willi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10314 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: JES, Judge: EBC, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 07/11/2017 for Appellant Dejuan Lamont Willis; denying motion to vacate the judgment of the district court filed by Appellant Mr. Dejuan Lamont Willis [8524416-2]; denying motion to remand case filed by Appellant Mr. Dejuan Lamont Willis [8524416-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Daniel Joseph Warrick [8220891-2] [16-10314]

Case: 16-10314

Document: 00514040142

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/20/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-10314
Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DEJUAN LAMONT WILLIS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:12-CR-1-1
Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Dejuan Lamont Willis has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Willis has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Willis’s claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10314

Document: 00514040142

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/20/2017

No. 16-10314
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 Willis’s response.

We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, Willis’s motion to vacate sentence
and remand for resentencing is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2