United States v. Levi ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 00-40356
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    HENRY LEVI,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:99-CR-145-1
    _________________________________________
    January 4, 2001
    Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Henry Levi has moved
    for leave to withdraw, filing a brief in accordance with Anders v. California.1 Levi
    was notified of counsel’s motion and brief, and he has filed a reply together with a
    motion for appointment of new counsel.
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    1
    
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    Levi maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. A claim of
    ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when it has not
    first been raised in the district court.2 The district court understandably made no
    factual findings regarding the newly advanced allegations of ineffective assistance.
    It is manifest that an analysis of this claim would require speculation by this court as
    to the reasons for the attorney’s alleged acts and omissions.3 This we decline do.
    We do not reach the merits of Levi’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, without
    prejudice to his right to present this matter to the district court via a motion under 28
    U.S.C. § 2255.4
    Our review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Levi’s reply discloses no non-
    frivolous issues for appeal. Consequently, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
    GRANTED and counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein. Levi’s
    motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
    See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
    2
    United States v. Bounds, 
    943 F.2d 541
    (5th Cir. 1991).
    3
    United States v. Kizzee, 
    150 F.3d 497
    (5th Cir. 1998).
    4
    United States v. Henderson, 
    72 F.3d 463
    (5th Cir. 1995).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-40356

Filed Date: 1/5/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021