USA v. Jamison Elli

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-40490 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ , Judge: LHS , Judge: SAH Mandate pull date is 04/17/2017 for Appellant Jamison Ross Ellis; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Jamison Ross Ellis [8349050-3], denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Jamison Ross Ellis [8287524-2]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Robert Gerard Arrambide, Esq. [8259243-2] [16-40490]

Case: 16-40490

Document: 00513927365

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/27/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-40490
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 27, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JAMISON ROSS ELLIS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CR-176-1
Before JOLLY, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jamison Ross Ellis
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). Ellis has filed a response, in which he requests new
appointed counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make
a fair evaluation of Ellis’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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-40490

Document: 00513927365

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/27/2017

No. 16-40490
therefore 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 Ellis’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, Ellis’s motion for
appointment of new counsel is DENIED, counsel is excused from further
responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2