Case ID: f-appx_218/html/0331-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Earl WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-40649
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 14, 2007.
    Tracey M. Batson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Curtis Lowe, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.