United States v. Aziz Choukri

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 25-11537
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-11537 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11537 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

AZIZ CHOUKRI, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00341-ELR-JKL-1 ____________________

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Joseph Saul, appointed counsel for Aziz Choukri in the present appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders USCA11 Case: 25-11537 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 01/14/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11537

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel correctly assessed the relative merit of Choukri’s appeal. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Choukri’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 1

1 To the extent that Choukri generally alleges in his response to counsel’s

motion to withdraw that his trial and appellate counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance, we do not reach these allegations because the record is not sufficiently developed. See United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324, 1328–29 (11th Cir. 2010) (“We will not generally consider claim of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal where the district court did not entertain the claim nor develop a factual record.”). Choukri is free to bring any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003) (explaining that “a motion brought under § 2255 is preferable to direct appeal for deciding claim of ineffective assistance”).