United States v. Williams

218 F. App'x 331
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Williams. Read the opinion of the Court — 113 F. App'x 620
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 14, 2007·No. 05-40649·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Court-appointed counsel for Earl Williams, Jr., 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). Williams has received a copy of counsel’s motion and has filed a pro se response. In his response, Williams contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. We conclude that the record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration on direct appeal of Williams’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.1987).

Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Williams’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, 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.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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. Williams, 218 F. App'x 331 (5th Cir. 2007).

218 F. App'x 331 (United States v. Williams) — 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)