United States v. Willis

158 F. App'x 577
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Willis. Read the opinion of the Court — 219 F. App'x 372
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided December 14, 2005·No. 04-20581·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Steven Willis has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal 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). Willis has filed a response, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Willis’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. We decline to address Willis’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, without prejudice to Willis’s right to assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003); see also United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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. Willis, 158 F. App'x 577 (5th Cir. 2005).

158 F. App'x 577 (United States v. Willis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Massaro v. United States
538 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court, 2003)
United States v. Tommy Ray Higdon
832 F.2d 312 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)