USA v. Shawn Scott
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-30304 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: TMR, Judge: PRO, Judge: JWE. Mandate pull date is 01/05/2017 for Appellant Shawn Scott; denying as untimely motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Shawn Scott [8370487-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Mark David Plaisance, Esq. [8265453-2] [16-30304]
Case: 16-30304
Document: 00513798737
Page: 1
Date Filed: 12/15/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-30304
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 15, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SHAWN SCOTT, also known as “Shizzle”,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:13-CR-227-3
Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Shawn Scott 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). Scott
has filed a response. He requests substitution of new counsel for his appointed
attorney. That motion is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner,
158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-30304
Document: 00513798737
Page: 2
Date Filed: 12/15/2016
No. 16-30304
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Scott’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
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?