United States v. Alexandre Anchico , 157 F. App'x 196 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 5, 2005
No. 05-10881 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 04-00437-CR-T-26TBM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALEXANDRE ANCHICO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 5, 2005)
Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Susan Hartman Swartz, court-appointed counsel for appellant, Alexandre
Anchico, in this direct criminal appeal, moves to withdraw from further
representation of the appellant and has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Anchico filed a
response, in which he states that he wishes to raise unspecified issues of arguable
merit and that Swartz has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Anchico also
moves this Court for appointment of a new attorney.
Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment
of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. To the extent Anchico seeks to assert
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in this direct appeal, the Supreme Court has
held that a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rather than a direct appeal, is the
preferred method to assert such a claim. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500,
504-05, 123 S. Ct. 1690, 155 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2003). Moreover, we do not find that
counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness is apparent from the record before us. Cf. United
States v. Freixas, 332 F.3d 1314, 1319 n.3 (11th Cir. 2003) (Although we typically
entertain ineffectiveness claims on collateral review, we may do so in the context of
a direct appeal if the record is sufficiently developed, as it plainly is here.” (emphasis
added)).
2
Because independent examination of the record reveals no issues of arguable
merit, Anchico’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, counsel’s motion
to withdraw is GRANTED, and Anchico’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
3