USA v. Dang Nguyen

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20178 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: CDK, Judge: JLD, Judge: GJC. Mandate pull date is 04/17/2017 for Appellant Dang Hai Nguyen; denying as untimely motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Dang Hai Nguyen [8371064-3]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Leif A. Olson [8341108-2] [16-20178]

Case: 16-20178

Document: 00513926731

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/27/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-20178
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 27, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DANG HAI NGUYEN, also known as Cong Chi Le,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:13-CR-303-1
Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Dang Hai Nguyen 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).
Nguyen has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow
us to make a fair evaluation of Nguyen’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20178

Document: 00513926731

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/27/2017

No. 16-20178
collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
The motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED as untimely. See
United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Nguyen’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.

2