USA v. Reginald Ellison, No. 17-30863 (5th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-30863 Document: 00514759599 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-30863 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 13, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. REGINALD ELLISON, also known as Ronda Ellison, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:11-CR-151-1 Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Reginald Ellison 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). Ellison did not file a response. Following this court’s order, counsel also filed a supplemental Anders brief addressing whether the district court’s aboveGuidelines revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30863 Document: 00514759599 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/13/2018 No. 17-30863 Ellison filed a response to counsel’s supplemental brief, in which he argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, on direct appeal, and on collateral review. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Ellison’s 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 briefs 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. Accordingly, counsel’s 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. Ellison’s motion to appoint new 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.
