Testo completo
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20306
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GILBERTO RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-121-2
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Private counsel appointed to represent Gilberto Ramirez has
requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Ramirez has filed a
response to the instant motion. Ramirez’s ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.
See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.
1987).
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 03-20306
-2-
Our independent review of the brief, the response, and the
record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 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.
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
