U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2011

United States v. Jeremy Lincoln

United States v. Jeremy Lincoln
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 19, 2011
422 F. App'x 383

United States v. Jeremy Lincoln

Opinion

Case: 10-20481 Document: 00511449981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 19, 2011 No. 10-20481 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JEREMY RAYE LINCOLN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-50-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jeremy Raye Lincoln 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). Lincoln has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Lincoln’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-20481 Document: 00511449981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011 No. 10-20481 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). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Lincoln’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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. Lincoln’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.