USA v. Shannon Buck

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-10349 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: WED, Judge: LHS, Judge: SAH. Mandate pull date is 05/17/2017 for Appellant Shannon Buck; granting motion for leave to file document filed by Appellant Mr. Shannon Buck [8411588-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Christopher Michael McCaffrey [8288451-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Shannon Buck [8305640-2] [16-10349]

Case: 16-10349

Document: 00513969675

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-10349
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 26, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SHANNON BUCK,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:14-CR-354-1

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Shannon Buck 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). Buck
has filed a response and moved for leave to file a supplemental response. That
motion is GRANTED. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to
make a fair evaluation of Buck’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-10349

Document: 00513969675

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

No. 16-10349
thus decline to consider the claims 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 Buck’s response and supplemental 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. Buck’s motion to appoint new
counsel is DENIED.

2