Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-14
Citations: 158 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 04-20581
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-20581.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 14, 2005.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Willis, pro se.
Jerome Godinich, Jr., Law Office of Jerome Godinich Jr., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The attorney appointed to represent Steven Willis has moved for 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). Willis has filed a response, raising claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Willis's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. We decline to address Willis's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, without prejudice to Willis's right to assert such claims in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003); see also United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987).
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.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.