Filed: Feb. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40649 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EARL WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-106-20 - Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Earl Wil
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-40649 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EARL WILLIAMS, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CR-106-20 - Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Court-appointed counsel for Earl Will..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 14, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40649
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EARL WILLIAMS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-106-20
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Court-appointed counsel for Earl Williams, Jr., has
requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has received
a copy of counsel’s motion and has filed a pro se response. In
his response, Williams contends that his trial counsel was
ineffective. We conclude that the record is insufficiently
developed to allow consideration on direct appeal of Williams’s
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States
v. Higdon,
832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-40649
-2-
Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and
Williams’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
Accordingly, 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.