USA v. Shannon Richardson, No. 14-40789 (5th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-40789 Document: 00513066735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-40789 Summary Calendar FILED June 4, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SHANNON GUESS RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13-CR-13 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Shannon Guess Richardson 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). Richardson has not filed a response. Counsel also moves to seal the record excerpts on appeal because they contain documents that were sealed in the district court. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-40789 Document: 00513066735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2015 No. 14-40789 The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which Richardson wishes to raise; we therefore decline to consider any such claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Counsel’s motions to seal the record excerpts and for leave to withdraw are 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.