IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30941
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MILTON ALEXANDER, also known as Bug,
Defendant-Appellant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 99-31078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DONNELL BROWN,
also known as Hammer, Officer,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(98-CR-30024)
January 12, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Court-appointed counsel for Milton Alexander and court-
appointed counsel for Michael Donnell Brown have each moved to
withdraw and have filed briefs as required by Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Brown’s motion to file a supplemental brief
is GRANTED.1
We have independently reviewed the briefs submitted by
counsel, the responses filed by Alexander and Brown, and the record
in both appeals, and we have found no nonfrivolous issue.2
Accordingly, counsel are excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
In his supplemental brief, Brown argues that Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000), prevents courts from determining
drug amounts for purposes of applying the sentencing guidelines
(within the ranges prescribed by 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)). This
argument has been completely foreclosed by United States v.
Doggett, 230 F.3d 160, 166 (5th Cir. 2000).
2
Counsel for Brown notes that it is arguable that Brown’s
counsel was ineffective. Counsel for Brown correctly notes,
however, that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must
be raised on collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and not on
direct appeal, since no such claim was raised before the district
court. United States v. Armendariz-Mata, 949 F.2d 151, 156 (5th
Cir. 1991).
2
United States v. Alexander
Combined Opinion