The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-11033•Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Raed Saif, also known as Mike
07-11033Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitAug 29, 2008
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-11033
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAED SAIF, also known as Mike
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:07-CR-31-ALL
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Raed Saif has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Saif has filed a response. The record is
insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Saif’s claims of
ineffective assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on
direct appeal when [they have] not been raised before the district court since no
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 29, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 07-11033
2
opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”
United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Our independent review of the record,
counsel’s brief, and Saif’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.
Accordingly, the 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. Saif’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is
DENIED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.