USA v. William Jewell, No. 13-30687 (5th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 13-30687 Document: 00512665312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-30687 Summary Calendar FILED June 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. WILLIAM A. JEWELL, also known as Vladimir Putin, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:11-CR-146-4 Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent William A. Jewell 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). Jewell has filed a response. To the extent Jewell complains of his counsel s performance, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-30687 Document: 00512665312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2014 No. 13-30687 to consider such a claim, 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 Jewell s response. We concur with counsel s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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. Jewell s belated motions to view sealed documents and to file an out-of-time supplemental response to the Anders brief are DENIED. All other motions are 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.