eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-05

United States v. Howell ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-50864         Document: 00516739615             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50864
Summary Calendar                                  FILED
____________                                     May 5, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                           Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Tymodreius Dae Quon Howell,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:22-CR-89-1
______________________________
Before Jolly, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
The attorney appointed to represent Tymodreius Dae Quon Howell
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). Howell has filed a response, in which he requests either
appointment of substitute counsel or permission to proceed pro se on appeal.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50864     Document: 00516739615           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/05/2023
No. 22-50864
The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation
of Howell’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline
to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United
States v. Isgar,
    739 F.3d 829
    , 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, Howell’s
requests to either receive substitute counsel or proceed pro se on appeal were
made after counsel filed the Anders brief, and, therefore, they are untimely.
See United States v. Wagner,
    158 F.3d 901
    , 902-903 (5th Cir. 1998).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as Howell’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. Howell’s motion to
appoint substitute counsel and alternative motion to proceed pro se on appeal
are DENIED.
2