United States v. Lively

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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
July 16, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-51045
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
WILLARD BARRY LIVELY,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CR-266-01-H
------------------------------------------------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Private counsel appointed to represent Willard Barry Lively has requested leave to withdraw
and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lively has filed a
response t o counsel’s motion. Lively’s claims alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
counsel are not cognizable in the instant appeal. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14
(5th Cir. 1987).
Our independent review of the brief, response, suppression hearing, jury trial, sentencing, and
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. Lively’s motion to allow counsel to withdraw is DENIED as moot.
COUNSEL’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; LIVELY’S MOTION TO ALLOW
COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --