Case ID: f-appx_522/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Derrick John SUTTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-40897
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 12, 2013.
    David Haskell Henderson, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bernard John Shealy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defender’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Derrick John Sutton, Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Derrick John Sutton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Sutton has filed a response. He has also filed an untimely motion for leave to file a pro se brief, which we construe as a motion for leave to file an out-of-time supplemental response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and GRANT. The record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Sutton’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; such a claim generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir.2006). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sutton’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cra. R. 42.2. Sutton’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED. Cf. United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir.1998). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.