From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Daniels

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jun 16, 2015
604 F. App'x 358 (5th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 14-10912

06-16-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PATHOM MADANE DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant


Conference Calendar Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:08-CR-9-1
Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pathom Madane Daniels 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). Daniels has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Daniels's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel's brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Daniels'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.


Summaries of

United States v. Daniels

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Jun 16, 2015
604 F. App'x 358 (5th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

United States v. Daniels

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. PATHOM MADANE DANIELS…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 16, 2015

Citations

604 F. App'x 358 (5th Cir. 2015)