United States v. Tennessee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 8, 2002
• Docket: 02-30083
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-30083 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TROY TENNESSEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CR-131-All-J -------------------- October 4, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender, counsel for Troy Tennessee, has

requested leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Tennessee has filed a pro se response. As part of his response,

Tennessee raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Tennessee argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to

introduce medical records in support of his claim of diminished

mental capacity. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-30083 -2-

generally may not be raised on direct appeal unless they were

raised in the district court. See United States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d

364, 369 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Tennessee failed to raise this

claim in the district court, the record on appeal is insufficient

to evaluate the merits of his claim. See United States v. Haese,

162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1998)(ineffective-assistance claims

normally raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion).

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Tennessee’s response discloses no non-frivolous issue.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is

excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.