USA v. Stacey Lee-Easiley, No. 15-20371 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-20371 Document: 00513414972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-20371 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 10, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. STACEY LAIR LEE-EASILEY, also known as Stacey L. Easiley, also known as Stacey Lee, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CR-662 Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Stacey Lair LeeEasiley 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). Lee-Easiley has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lee-Easiley’s 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-20371 Document: 00513414972 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2016 No. 15-20371 claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims 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 Lee-Easiley’s response. Although counsel addresses the validity of Lee-Easiley’s appeal waiver, counsel does not discuss the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. An appeal waiver in the plea agreement does not waive the district court’s compliance with Rule 11 or the need to brief this issue adequately in an Anders brief. See United States v. Carreon-Ibarra, 673 F.3d 358, 362 n.3 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 787, 789-90 (5th Cir. 2003). Nevertheless, our independent review confirms that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore 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. Lee-Easiley’s motion for the appointment of counsel 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.
