Court Opinion

ID: 60501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-26 04:00:06+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:55.539016
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                   FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                  FILED
                                                                 April 16, 2008
                                No. 06-31302
                             Conference Calendar             Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                     Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

AUBREY DAVIS

                                           Defendant-Appellant

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:04-CR-366-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
      The attorney appointed to represent Aubrey Davis has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). Davis has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to
allow consideration at this time of Davis’s claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when [they
have] not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to

      *
      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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
                                No. 06-31302

develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” See United States v.
Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and
Davis’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the
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.
Davis’s motion to withdraw the Anders brief and appoint new counsel is
DENIED.

                                     2