                 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


                       _______________________

                             No. 99-31174
                           Summary Calendar
                     Civil Docket #98-CR-60027-2
                       _______________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               versus

JOSEPH ROBICHEAUX,

                                                 Defendant-Appellant.


_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Western District of Louisiana
_________________________________________________________________
                          February 2, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

          The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Robicheaux has

moved for leave to withdrawn and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).        In response to

counsel’s motion, Robicheaux has raised several appellate issues,

including claims that counsel performed ineffectively at trial and

at sentencing, and he moves this court to appoint new appellate


     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
counsel.   The motion for appointment of new appellate counsel is

DENIED.

           We pretermit consideration of Robicheaux’s ineffective

counsel arguments because the record is not adequately developed

for appellate review.    United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d

127, 133-34 (5th Cir. 1997).     Robicheaux’s responses, counsel’s

brief, and our independent review of the record reveal no other

potentially nonfrivolous issue. Consequently, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED and counsel is excused from further

responsibilities    herein.   Robicheaux’s   claims   of   ineffective

counsel are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to his ability to raise the

issues on 28 U.S.C. § 2255 review.   The APPEAL IS DISMISSED.      See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.




                                 2
