United States v. Ramirez

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided April 20, 2004·No. 03-20306·Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 03-20306 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GILBERTO RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-121-2 --------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Private counsel appointed to represent Gilberto Ramirez has

requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has filed a

response to the instant motion. Ramirez’s ineffective-

assistance-of-counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.

See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.

1987).

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 03-20306 -2-

Our independent review of the brief, the response, and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.

MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

United States v. Ramirez, (5th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Ramirez (United States v. Ramirez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
United States v. Tommy Ray Higdon
832 F.2d 312 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)