USA v. Dejuan Willis, No. 16-10314 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10314 Document: 00514040142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-10314 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. DEJUAN LAMONT WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CR-1-1 Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Dejuan Lamont Willis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and supplemental brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Willis has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Willis’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-10314 Document: 00514040142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 No. 16-10314 prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Willis’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. See United States v. Pesina-Rodriguez, 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, Willis’s motion to vacate sentence and remand for resentencing is DENIED, 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.