United States v. Bull
United States v. Bull
Opinion
Case: 21-11138 Document: 00516412213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/29/2022
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 29, 2022 No. 21-11138 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Randall Emery Bull, Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:20-CR-136-2
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Randall Emery Bull 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). Bull has filed a response and moves for the appointment of new
* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-11138 Document: 00516412213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/29/2022
No. 21-11138
counsel or, alternatively, to strike counsel’s brief and for an extension of time to file an amended or new opening brief. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Bull’s claim of ineffective assistance based on appellate counsel’s alleged failure to communicate with him; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Bull’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. Bull’s motion for appointment of new counsel or, alternatively, to strike counsel’s brief and for an extension of time is DENIED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.