USA v. Kendrick Chapple, No. 13-10424 (5th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10424 Document: 00512665913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-10424 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 17, 2014 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. KENDRICK CHAPPLE, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:12-CR-273-2 Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Kendrick Chapple 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). Chapple has filed a response requesting an extension of time to respond to various orders to show cause issued by this court, and to investigate his counsel s performance. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-10424 Document: 00512665913 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 No. 13-10424 We have reviewed counsel s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Chapple s response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Chapple s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Chapple s motion for an extension of time is DENIED as unnecessary because counsel has adequately satisfied each order to show cause. We concur with counsel s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review because the defendant validly agreed to waive appeal. 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. 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.