USA v. Melvin Ward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-50970 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EGJ, Judge: JES, Judge: JEG. Mandate pull date is 05/17/2017 for Appellant Melvin Ward; denying as untimely motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Melvin Ward [8403548-5]; denying motion to extend time to file Anders pro se response filed by Appellant Mr. Melvin Ward [8403548-3]; denying motion to stay further proceedings in this court filed by Appellant Mr. Melvin Ward [8403548-4]; granting motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Aaron Eugene Eckman, Esq. [8363094-2] [16-50970]

Case: 16-50970

Document: 00513968967

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-50970
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 26, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MELVIN WARD,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:15-CR-201-1
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Melvin Ward 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).
Ward has filed a response. He requests substitution of new counsel for his
appointed attorney, an extension of time for a new attorney to file a responsive
brief, and a stay of the proceedings. The motion is DENIED as untimely as 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-50970

Document: 00513968967

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/26/2017

No. 16-50970
the appointment of counsel. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 90203 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the decision in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct.
886 (2017), has issued, the motion for a stay of the proceedings is DENIED as
well.
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record
reflected therein, as well as Ward’s response.

We concur with counsel’s

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s 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