United States v. Davis

274 F. App'x 366
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Davis. Read the opinion of the Court — 487 F.3d 282
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 16, 2008·No. 06-31302·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Aubrey Davis has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Davis has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Davis’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Davis’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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. Davis’s motion to withdraw the Anders brief and appoint new counsel is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Davis, 274 F. App'x 366 (5th Cir. 2008).

274 F. App'x 366 (United States v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Cantwell
470 F.3d 1087 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)
Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)