United States v. Ayers
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Transverse v. IA Wireless Srv (5th Cir. 2021)
- Troy E. Nehls, Sheriff, and Fort Bend County, Texas v. Hartman Newspapers, LP D/B/A Fort Bend Herald and Texas Coaster (Tex. App. 2017)
- Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal., Inc. v. Wheeler (United States District Court 2019)
- Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Pruitt (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 2019)
- Max Hudson v. the Honorable Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas And Region 16 Education Services Center (Tex. App. 2015)
- Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners v. Gene Giggleman, DVM (Tex. App. 2013)
- State v. Jennifer Brewer (Tex. App. 2011)
- Dallas Morning News, Inc. v. City of Arlington (Tex. App. 2011)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The attorney appointed to represent Robert William Ayers, III, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Ayers has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Ayers’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006)(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Ayers’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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. Ayers’s motion for the appointment of new counsel and his motion to vacate the district court’s judgment and remand the case are DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.