United States v. Jesse Bell

Case: 20-10005      Document: 00515597675         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/12/2020

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

                                                                       October 12, 2020
                                  No. 20-10005
                               Conference Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce

   United States of America,



   Jesse Bell,


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:17-CR-281-1

   Before Smith, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          The attorney appointed to represent Jesse Bell 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). Bell
   has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to

            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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10005      Document: 00515597675          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/12/2020

                                    No. 20-10005

   make a fair evaluation of Bell’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we
   therefore decline to consider the claim 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 Bell’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.
          The judgment is REFORMED to reflect Bell’s conviction under 18
   U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2 rather than §§ 924(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. See
   United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2009).

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid United States v. Jesse Bell in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from United States v. Jesse Bell. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
United States v. Jesse Bell 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.