United States v. Russell

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10641
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH PAUL RUSSELL, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CR-304-ALL-T
--------------------
December 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to repesent Joseph
Paul Russell, Jr. has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Russell has filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief,
asserting that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel
because counsel failed to investigate whether he had violated the
conditions of his supervised release. Russell also argues that
the district court abused its discretion in revoking his
supervised release.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-10641
-2-
The record has not been adequately developed for us to
consider in this direct appeal the ineffective assistance claims
raised by Russell. See United States v. Hidgon, 832 F.2d 312,
314 (5th Cir. 1987).
Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and
Russell’s response shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues
for appeal. Consequently, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --