United States v. McCoy

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-50509
Conference Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Darnell O'Shea McCoy,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:18-CR-257-12

Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
The attorney appointed to represent Darnell O’Shea McCoy 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). McCoy has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-50509 Document: 00515547727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2020

No. 19-50509
2
developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of McCoy’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 brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein, as well as McCoy’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 5
TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The record reflects a clerical error in the written judgment. Although
the judgment refers to the offense of conviction as conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute a controlled substance, the record indicates that McCoy
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of correction of the
clerical error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36.
Case: 19-50509 Document: 00515547727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2020