Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Edward HOUSE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-09
Citations: 222 F. App'x 394
Docket Number: No. 05-40461
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Edward HOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Edward HOUSE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40461
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 9, 2007.
Lisa G. Flournoy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Richard Heath, Nacogdoches, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jonathan Edward House, Oklahoma City, OK, pro se.
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Counsel appointed to represent Jonathan Edward House has requested 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). House has filed responses to counsel's motion to withdraw, moving for the appointment of counsel and raising several claims, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government has moved for dismissal of the appeal based on House's appeal waiver.
Our independent review of the record and counsel's brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, House's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED without prejudice to House's right to bring his ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The Government's motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.
DISMISSED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.