Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ellis Moses BARBER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-06
Citations: 144 F. App'x 445
Docket Number: No. 05-30100
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ellis Moses BARBER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 445–445

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ellis Moses BARBER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-30100.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Oct. 6, 2005.
Camille Ann Domingue, Brett L. Gray-son, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ellis Moses Barber 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). Barber has filed a response claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; and challenging the factual basis supporting his guilty plea and the district court's application of the statutorily-mandated minimum sentences.
Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Barber's response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. We decline on direct appeal to address Barber's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 859 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 908, 119 S.Ct. 247, 142 L.Ed.2d 203 (1998).
Counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED. Counsel is excused from further responsibilities in this case, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pursuant to 5m Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.