Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lawrence MILLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 132 F. App'x 10
Docket Number: No. 04-10810
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lawrence MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 10–11

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lawrence MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10810.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided May 18, 2005.
Frederick M. Schattman, Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James Warren St John, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Defendanb-Appellant Michael Lawrence Miller, a correctional officer with the Bureau of Prisons, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a ward, and abusive sexual contact. He was sentenced to a total of 150 months in prison and four years of supervised release.
Counsel has not adequately briefed the claim that the evidence was insufficient to support Miller's conviction. He was convicted of committing the above-listed crimes, but counsel has failed even to recite the elements of each offense and how the evidence purportedly failed to support each element. Counsel's argument contains no citation to the record and no substantive "argument" on the issue of the insufficiency of the evidence; rather, it consists of nothing more than conelusional assertions. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Thus, Miller's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions is deemed abandoned on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.1993).
Miller claims that his legal representation was ineffective at trial because his counsel suffered from a serious medical disability that interfered with his ability to conduct comprehensive, thorough cross-examination of the witnesses. As this is not one of those rare cases in which the record is sufficiently developed to allow this court to evaluate the merits of Miller's ineffectiveness claim, we decline to address it here. See United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir.1992). Miller may pursue his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.