United States v. Sirkel
This text of 207 F. App'x 460 (United States v. Sirkel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The attorney appointed to represent Jason Dwayne Sirkel has requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Sirkel has raised several arguments in response to counsel’s Anders motion.
Our independent review of the brief, Sirkel’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Regarding Sirkel’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, we see no reason to depart from our general practice of not reviewing ineffective-assistanee-of-counsel claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir.2002).
Counsel’s 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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
207 F. App'x 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-sirkel-ca5-2006.