UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAWN SCOTT BANTA (2016)

The attorney appointed to represent Shawn Scott Banta 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). Banta has not filed a response.

We have reviewed counsel's brief 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, including counsel's conclusion that the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider such a claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). We also note that, contrary to counsel's assertion, there is no clerical error in the district court's Statement of Reasons (SOR). The SOR correctly reflects that the sentence was within the guideline range and that the difference between the maximum and minimum of the guideline range does not exceed 24 months. 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.

PER CURIAM:*