United States v. Mack Biggers

Case: 19-20817      Document: 00515597669         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/12/2020




              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                                                               FILED
                                                                        October 12, 2020
                                  No. 19-20817                            Lyle W. Cayce
                               Conference Calendar                             Clerk


   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Mack Biggers,

                                                           Defendant—Appellant.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:18-CR-740-1


   Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Mack Biggers 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).
   Biggers has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow


          *
            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-20817      Document: 00515597669           Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/12/2020




                                     No. 19-20817


   us to make a fair evaluation of Biggers’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 Biggers’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 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.




                                          2
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on NO-SCAM.com, it is strongly advised to avoid United States v. Mack Biggers in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from United States v. Mack Biggers. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike No-Scam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
United States v. Mack Biggers is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.
The above review and comments against United States v. Mack Biggers were submitted by NO-SCAM.com user(s) and have been published as-is. NO-SCAM.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their reviews or complaints and NO-SCAM.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the review on United States v. Mack Biggers at any cost whatsoever.
>