Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Harvey JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-05
Citations: 82 F. App'x 380
Docket Number: No. 03-20223
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Harvey JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 380–380

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Harvey JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20223.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 5, 2003.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US, Attorney, US Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Johnson, Texas Department of Criminal, Justice, Institutional Division Boyd Unit, Teague, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Counsel appointed for defendant John Harvey Johnson has moved for 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). Johnson has filed a response in which he argues that his guilty plea was involuntary, his trial counsel was ineffective, and the district court abused its discretion. We decline to address the ineffective assistance claims raised by Johnson in this proceeding. See United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir.1998).
Our independent review of counsel's brief, Johnson's response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. 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. Because there is no nonfrivolous issue for appeal, Johnson's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. Cf United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998).
ANDERS MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.