USA v. Steven Hebert, No. 11-30917 (5th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 11-30917 Document: 00511964248 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 11-30917 Conference Calendar August 21, 2012 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STEVEN HEBERT, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09-CR-154-1 Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* The attorney appointed to represent Steven Hebert 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). Hebert has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Hebert s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-30917 Document: 00511964248 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012 No. 11-30917 the record on the merits of the allegations. United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Hebert 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. Hebert s untimely request for appointment of new counsel on appeal is DENIED. 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.