United States v. Sirkel

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
November 30, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-40417
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JASON DWAYNE SIRKEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(4:05-CR-14-ALL)
(4:05-CR-31-4)
(4:05-CR-93-ALL)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The attorney appointed to represent Jason Dwayne Sirkel has
requested leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sirkel has raised
several arguments in response to counsel’s Anders motion.
Our independent review of the brief, Sirkel’s response, and
the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Regarding Sirkel’s
claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial,
we see no reason to depart from our general practice of not

-- 1 of 2 --

2
reviewing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct
appeal. See United States v. Valuck, 286 F.3d 221, 229 (5th Cir.
2002).
Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED; counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein; and the APPEAL IS
DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

-- 2 of 2 --