USA v. Ellis Morganfield, No. 16-51097 (5th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 16-51097 Document: 00514254226 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 16-51097 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 29, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELLIS MORGANFIELD, Defendant-Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-10-2 Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Ellis Morganfield 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). Morganfield has filed a response and a motion for leave to supplement his response. 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 16-51097 Document: 00514254226 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2017 No. 16-51097 As an initial matter, we note that the district court sentenced Morganfield to time served for the revocation of his supervised release and therefore Morganfield is no longer in custody. Because no additional term of supervised release was imposed, the instant appeal is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); United States v. Clark, 193 F.3d 845, 847-48 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot, and counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as unnecessary. motion to supplement is DENIED. 2 Morganfield’s

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.