USA v. Malone Burns, No. 13-40056 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 7, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 13-40056 Document: 00512491546 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-40056 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 7, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. MALONE BURNS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-135-1 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Malone Burns 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). Burns has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Burns s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 13-40056 Document: 00512491546 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 No. 13-40056 claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop 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 Burns 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. Burns s motion to file a motion for reconsideration out of time is GRANTED but his motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel 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.
