     Case: 17-20117      Document: 00514663974         Page: 1    Date Filed: 10/01/2018




           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                                                                FILED
                                    No. 17-20117                          October 1, 2018
                                 Conference Calendar
                                                                           Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DEANGELO ONEAL TATE,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:15-CR-634-1


Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
       The attorney appointed to represent DeAngelo Oneal Tate has moved for
leave to withdraw and has filed a brief and a supplemental in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d
229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tate has filed a response as well as a supplemental
memorandum that refers to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 28(j). The
record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of


       * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-20117    Document: 00514663974     Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/01/2018


                                 No. 17-20117

Tate’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, as well as Tate’s filings.       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. Tate’s motion to exceed the word limit applicable to Rule 28(j)
letters is GRANTED; however, to the extent that Tate requests vacatur and
remand, his request is DENIED.




                                       2
