United States v. Wright

203 F. App'x 648
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Wright. Read the opinion of the Court — 496 F.3d 371
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 25, 2006·No. 05-31082·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

*649 The attorney appointed to represent Patrick A. Wright has moved for leave 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). Wright filed a response in which he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to fairly evaluate the merits of this issue. Therefore, it is not reviewable on direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.1987).

Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Wright’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 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 *649 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. Wright, 203 F. App'x 648 (5th Cir. 2006).

203 F. App'x 648 (United States v. Wright) — 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)