USA v. Keith Oser, No. 17-40176 (5th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 17-40176 Document: 00514279442 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 17-40176 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 20, 2017 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. KEITH NICHOLAS OSER, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15-CR-212-1 Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Keith Nicholas Oser 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). Oser has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Oser’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Nor is the record sufficiently 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-40176 Document: 00514279442 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017 No. 17-40176 developed for us to address Oser’s contention that his guilty plea was coerced. See United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 176-78 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See Isgar, 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett, 742 F.2d at 178 n.11. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Oser’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. 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.