USA v. Chaney, et al, No. 20-20054 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-20054 Document: 00515721030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED January 26, 2021 No. 20-20054 Conference Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Frank Chaney, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-672-3 Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* The attorney appointed to represent Frank Chaney 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). Chaney has filed a response. To the extent Chaney raises a claim of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-20054 Document: 00515721030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2021 No. 20-20054 ineffective assistance of counsel, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claim; we therefore decline to consider it 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 Chaney’s response. 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. To the extent Chaney moves for the appointment of substitute counsel, the motion is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 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.