United States v. Williams

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Williams

417 F. App'x 388

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 2011

DocketNo. 10-50422

StatusPublished

This text of 417 F. App'x 388 (United States v. Williams) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Williams, 417 F. App'x 388 (5th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent James Demoung Williams has moved for [389]*389leave 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). Williams has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Williams’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Williams’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised in a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 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 [389]*389published 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

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent James Demoung Williams has moved for [389]*389leave 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). Williams has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Williams’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Williams’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised in a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 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 [389]*389published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 F. App'x 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-williams-ca5-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack