USA v. Jason Estep, No. 13-10739 (5th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10739 Document: 00512666122 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10739 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 17, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. JASON RAY ESTEP, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-11-2 Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jason Ray Estep 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). Estep has filed a response, which raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and includes a request for the appointment of substitute counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10739 Document: 00512666122 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 No. 13-10739 a fair evaluation of Estep 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). We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Estep s response. We concur with counsel s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Estep s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, 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. 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.