USA v. Danyell Roberts, No. 18-11493 (5th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 18-11493 Document: 00515204520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 18-11493 Conference Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 19, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. DANYELL MICHELLE ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:17-CR-129-1 Before ELROD, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Danyell Michelle Roberts 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). Roberts has filed a response, which contains a motion for appointment of new counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Roberts’s claim of ineffective assistance 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-11493 Document: 00515204520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 No. 18-11493 of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Roberts’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, Roberts’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED, 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. 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.