USA v. Cedrick Scott, No. 09-30962 (5th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-30962 Document: 00511114595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-30962 Summary Calendar May 18, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. CEDRICK SCOTT Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:99-CR-5-1 Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cedrick Scott has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Scott filed a motion for termination of counsel and for an extension of time to file appellate brief. He subsequently filed a pro se brief. Scott has not shown that there is a conflict of interest or other most pressing circumstances or that the interests of justice otherwise require relief * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-30962 Document: 00511114595 Page: 2 No. 09-30962 Date Filed: 05/18/2010 of counsel. F IFTH C IRCUIT P LAN U NDER THE C RIMINAL J USTICE A CT, ยง 5(B); see also 18 U.S.C. 3006A(c). As Scott has not unequivocally requested to proceed pro se, his motion is insufficient to justify relieving appointed counsel and allowing him to proceed pro se. See Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607, 610 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Accordingly, Scott s motion for termination of counsel is DENIED. Because Scott has now filed a pro se brief, his motion for extension of time to file appellate brief is DENIED as moot. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, we have construed Scott s pro se brief as a response to his counsel s Anders motion and considered the issues raised therein. Our independent review of the record, counsel s brief, and Scott 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 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
