United States v. Miller

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
May 18, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-10810
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL LAWRENCE MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:03-CR-226-ALL-A)
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Michael Lawrence Miller, a correctional
officer with the Bureau of Prisons, was convicted by a jury of
aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a ward, and abusive sexual
contact. He was sentenced to a total of 150 months in prison and
four years of supervised release.
Counsel has not adequately briefed the claim that the evidence
was insufficient to support Miller’s conviction. He was convicted
of committing the above-listed crimes, but counsel has failed even

-- 1 of 2 --

2
to recite the elements of each offense and how the evidence
purportedly failed to support each element. Counsel’s argument
contains no citation to the record and no substantive “argument” on
the issue of the insufficiency of the evidence; rather, it consists
of nothing more than conclusional assertions. See Brinkmann v.
Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.
1987). Thus, Miller’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
to support his convictions is deemed abandoned on appeal. See
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).
Miller claims that his legal representation was ineffective at
trial because his counsel suffered from a serious medical
disability that interfered with his ability to conduct
comprehensive, thorough cross-examination of the witnesses. As
this is not one of those rare cases in which the record is
sufficiently developed to allow this court to evaluate the merits
of Miller’s ineffectiveness claim, we decline to address it here.
See United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992).
Miller may pursue his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in
a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --