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UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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?