Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Anthony ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-20
Citations: 233 F. App'x 385
Docket Number: No. 06-20413
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Anthony ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 233
Pages: 385–385

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Anthony ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-20413
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 20, 2007.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Charles Anthony Roberts has requested 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). Roberts has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel's brief, and Roberts's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Roberts's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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. The motion by Roberts for substitution of counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.